SU‐C‐137‐02: A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for Tandem and Ring Brachytherapy

Robin L Stern, J. Mayadev, R. Harse, S. Lentz, M. Mathai, S. Boddu, M. Kern, J. Courquin, Sonja Dieterich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To improve the quality and safety of our tandem and ring brachytherapy practice and procedure, we performed a treatment process analysis following the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) method. Methods: The FMEA analysis was performed by a multi‐disciplinary team. The treatment process was divided into six sub‐processes and a flowchart was created for each. For each action point within a sub‐process, failure modes (FM) were collected. A scoring guideline was developed based on published FMEA studies and adapted for brachytherapy at UC Davis. Scores were assigned through team consensus. FM were ranked according to overall score as well as severity score alone. FM ranking above 5% of the highest risk priority number (RPN) score, representing half the FM, were selected for in‐depth analysis. The efficiency of each existing QA process to detect FM and the number of QA tests in place for each FM were analyzed. Results: 96 FM were scored for severity, occurrence and detectability. RPN scores ranged from 1 to 192. Of the 12 highest ranking FM with RPN scores > 80, half had severity scores of 8 or 9, with no mode having severity of 10. Of the top 48 FM, the originating process steps were insertion (10%), simulation (33%), planning (29%) and delivery (25%). Checklist efficiency and comprehensiveness including physician, nurse and physics checks, ranged from 25% to 79% in preventing the top 48 FM ranked by RPN. Physics machine QA was inefficient in detecting the top ranked FM (<5%), but was very efficient to catch FM with severity >7 (15%). Conclusion: This is the first reported FMEA process in gynecologic brachytherapy. We were able to identify failure modes that could potentially and severely impact the patient's treatment. We continue to adjust our QA program based on the results of our FMEA analysis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)84
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume40
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Brachytherapy
Physics
Software Design
Checklist
Therapeutics
Nurses
Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
Guidelines
Physicians
Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐C‐137‐02 : A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for Tandem and Ring Brachytherapy. / Stern, Robin L; Mayadev, J.; Harse, R.; Lentz, S.; Mathai, M.; Boddu, S.; Kern, M.; Courquin, J.; Dieterich, Sonja.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2013, p. 84.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Stern, RL, Mayadev, J, Harse, R, Lentz, S, Mathai, M, Boddu, S, Kern, M, Courquin, J & Dieterich, S 2013, 'SU‐C‐137‐02: A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for Tandem and Ring Brachytherapy', Medical Physics, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 84. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4813933
Stern, Robin L ; Mayadev, J. ; Harse, R. ; Lentz, S. ; Mathai, M. ; Boddu, S. ; Kern, M. ; Courquin, J. ; Dieterich, Sonja. / SU‐C‐137‐02 : A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for Tandem and Ring Brachytherapy. In: Medical Physics. 2013 ; Vol. 40, No. 6. pp. 84.
@article{9cf926e298744760ac69b89fb6912010,
title = "SU‐C‐137‐02: A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for Tandem and Ring Brachytherapy",
abstract = "Purpose: To improve the quality and safety of our tandem and ring brachytherapy practice and procedure, we performed a treatment process analysis following the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) method. Methods: The FMEA analysis was performed by a multi‐disciplinary team. The treatment process was divided into six sub‐processes and a flowchart was created for each. For each action point within a sub‐process, failure modes (FM) were collected. A scoring guideline was developed based on published FMEA studies and adapted for brachytherapy at UC Davis. Scores were assigned through team consensus. FM were ranked according to overall score as well as severity score alone. FM ranking above 5{\%} of the highest risk priority number (RPN) score, representing half the FM, were selected for in‐depth analysis. The efficiency of each existing QA process to detect FM and the number of QA tests in place for each FM were analyzed. Results: 96 FM were scored for severity, occurrence and detectability. RPN scores ranged from 1 to 192. Of the 12 highest ranking FM with RPN scores > 80, half had severity scores of 8 or 9, with no mode having severity of 10. Of the top 48 FM, the originating process steps were insertion (10{\%}), simulation (33{\%}), planning (29{\%}) and delivery (25{\%}). Checklist efficiency and comprehensiveness including physician, nurse and physics checks, ranged from 25{\%} to 79{\%} in preventing the top 48 FM ranked by RPN. Physics machine QA was inefficient in detecting the top ranked FM (<5{\%}), but was very efficient to catch FM with severity >7 (15{\%}). Conclusion: This is the first reported FMEA process in gynecologic brachytherapy. We were able to identify failure modes that could potentially and severely impact the patient's treatment. We continue to adjust our QA program based on the results of our FMEA analysis.",
author = "Stern, {Robin L} and J. Mayadev and R. Harse and S. Lentz and M. Mathai and S. Boddu and M. Kern and J. Courquin and Sonja Dieterich",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1118/1.4813933",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "84",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐C‐137‐02

T2 - A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for Tandem and Ring Brachytherapy

AU - Stern, Robin L

AU - Mayadev, J.

AU - Harse, R.

AU - Lentz, S.

AU - Mathai, M.

AU - Boddu, S.

AU - Kern, M.

AU - Courquin, J.

AU - Dieterich, Sonja

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Purpose: To improve the quality and safety of our tandem and ring brachytherapy practice and procedure, we performed a treatment process analysis following the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) method. Methods: The FMEA analysis was performed by a multi‐disciplinary team. The treatment process was divided into six sub‐processes and a flowchart was created for each. For each action point within a sub‐process, failure modes (FM) were collected. A scoring guideline was developed based on published FMEA studies and adapted for brachytherapy at UC Davis. Scores were assigned through team consensus. FM were ranked according to overall score as well as severity score alone. FM ranking above 5% of the highest risk priority number (RPN) score, representing half the FM, were selected for in‐depth analysis. The efficiency of each existing QA process to detect FM and the number of QA tests in place for each FM were analyzed. Results: 96 FM were scored for severity, occurrence and detectability. RPN scores ranged from 1 to 192. Of the 12 highest ranking FM with RPN scores > 80, half had severity scores of 8 or 9, with no mode having severity of 10. Of the top 48 FM, the originating process steps were insertion (10%), simulation (33%), planning (29%) and delivery (25%). Checklist efficiency and comprehensiveness including physician, nurse and physics checks, ranged from 25% to 79% in preventing the top 48 FM ranked by RPN. Physics machine QA was inefficient in detecting the top ranked FM (<5%), but was very efficient to catch FM with severity >7 (15%). Conclusion: This is the first reported FMEA process in gynecologic brachytherapy. We were able to identify failure modes that could potentially and severely impact the patient's treatment. We continue to adjust our QA program based on the results of our FMEA analysis.

AB - Purpose: To improve the quality and safety of our tandem and ring brachytherapy practice and procedure, we performed a treatment process analysis following the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) method. Methods: The FMEA analysis was performed by a multi‐disciplinary team. The treatment process was divided into six sub‐processes and a flowchart was created for each. For each action point within a sub‐process, failure modes (FM) were collected. A scoring guideline was developed based on published FMEA studies and adapted for brachytherapy at UC Davis. Scores were assigned through team consensus. FM were ranked according to overall score as well as severity score alone. FM ranking above 5% of the highest risk priority number (RPN) score, representing half the FM, were selected for in‐depth analysis. The efficiency of each existing QA process to detect FM and the number of QA tests in place for each FM were analyzed. Results: 96 FM were scored for severity, occurrence and detectability. RPN scores ranged from 1 to 192. Of the 12 highest ranking FM with RPN scores > 80, half had severity scores of 8 or 9, with no mode having severity of 10. Of the top 48 FM, the originating process steps were insertion (10%), simulation (33%), planning (29%) and delivery (25%). Checklist efficiency and comprehensiveness including physician, nurse and physics checks, ranged from 25% to 79% in preventing the top 48 FM ranked by RPN. Physics machine QA was inefficient in detecting the top ranked FM (<5%), but was very efficient to catch FM with severity >7 (15%). Conclusion: This is the first reported FMEA process in gynecologic brachytherapy. We were able to identify failure modes that could potentially and severely impact the patient's treatment. We continue to adjust our QA program based on the results of our FMEA analysis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024776494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024776494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4813933

DO - 10.1118/1.4813933

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024776494

VL - 40

SP - 84

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -