Risk analysis to inform physics plan review recommendations

Similar documents
The Smart Way to Check Treatment Plans and Charts. Anne W. Greener, Ph.D., FACR American Association Of Medical Dosimetrists June 15, 2016

Risk-based QM for Incorrect Isocenter at Day 1 Setup. TG 100 risk based QM development Process Mapping

Best practice recommendations from AAPM Task Group sneak peak -

Elekta MOSAIQ and Philips Pinnacle

The Canadian National System for Incident Reporting in Radiation Treatment (NSIR-RT) Taxonomy March 11, 2015

Therapy symposium Formal Radiation Therapy Safety Processes

QUARTERLY REPORT PATIENT SAFETY WORK PRODUCT Q J A N UA RY 1, 2016 MA R C H 31, 2016

National System for Incident Reporting in Radiation Therapy (NSIR-RT) Taxonomy

Using Event Reporting to Improve Patient Safety SAMs Session

8/2/2018. Disclosure. Online MR-IG-ART Dosimetry and Dose Accumulation

Clinical Safety & Effectiveness Session # _6_

CBCT of the patient in the treatment position has gained wider applications for setup verification during radiotherapy.

SUPERIORITY OF A REAL TIME PLANNING TECHNIQUE OVER IMAGE GUIDED RADIATION THERAPY FOR THE TREATMENT OF PRIMARY PROSTATE CANCERS

Overview. Proton Therapy in lung cancer 8/3/2016 IMPLEMENTATION OF PBS PROTON THERAPY TREATMENT FOR FREE BREATHING LUNG CANCER PATIENTS

Completion of Treatment Planning. Eugene Lief, Ph.D. Christ Hospital Jersey City, New Jersey USA

7/10/2015. Acknowledgments. Institution-specific TG-142? AAPM:Task Group-142. Failure-Mode & Effects Analysis

SBRT fundamentals. Outline 8/2/2012. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Educational Session

Patient Safety in the Treatment Process

Automated Plan Quality Check with Scripting. Rajesh Gutti, Ph.D. Clinical Medical Physicist

Medical Errors in Radiation Therapy 2014

Bruce Thomadsen. University of Wisconsin - Madison

Clinical Quality Assurance for Particle Therapy Plus ça même Plus

Clinical Implementation of a New Ultrasound Guidance System. Vikren Sarkar Bill Salter Martin Szegedi

Department of Radiation Oncology SMART. Stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy. Marloes Jeulink Omar Bohoudi

Review of TG-186 recommendations

Patient-Specific QA & QA Process. Sasa Mutic, Ph.D. Washington University School of Medicine

A Comparison of IMRT and VMAT Technique for the Treatment of Rectal Cancer

Your Colleagues. Ellen Yorke Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Objectives. Image-Guided RT: Process. kv CBCT Novel Clinical Applications and Future Directions. Standard Clinical Uses. Novel Applications.

The University of Michigan Radiation Oncology Clinic Analysis of Waste in the Radiation Oncology Clinic Patient Flow Process.

Can we deliver the dose distribution we plan in HDR-Brachytherapy of Prostate Cancer?

Leksell Gamma Knife Icon A New User s Perspective

NIA MAGELLAN HEALTH RADIATION ONCOLOGY CODING STANDARD. Dosimetry Planning

Image Registration for Radiation Therapy Applications: Part 2: In-room Volumetric Imaging

Jennifer L Johnson, MS, MBA Chair, WGPE

Andrew K. Lee, MD, MPH Associate Professor Department tof fradiation Oncology M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

Who Should Know Radiation Oncology Coding?

The Role of Checklists on Improving Safety in Radiation Oncology. Luis E. Fong de los Santos, Ph.D.

Prevention of Medical Errors: Concepts and Tools. Perry Johnson, PhD April 30, 2016

Radiotherapy Considerations in Extremity Sarcoma

Medical Dosimetry Graduate Certificate Program IU Graduate School & The Department of Radiation Oncology IU Simon Cancer Center

Feasibility of 4D IMRT Delivery for Hypofractionated High Dose Partial Prostate Treatments

Varian Edge Experience. Jinkoo Kim, Ph.D Henry Ford Health System

Can we deliver the dose distribution we plan in HDR-Brachytherapy of Prostate Cancer?

The High-End Solution for Real-Time Patient Tracking

Work partially supported by VisionRT

THE TRANSITION FROM 2D TO 3D AND TO IMRT - RATIONALE AND CRITICAL ELEMENTS

SBRT of Lung & Liver lesions using Novalis IGRT System. Patrick Silgen, M.S., DABR Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital

Outline. Contour quality control. Dosimetric impact of contouring errors and variability in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT)

Image Guided Stereotactic Radiotherapy of the Lung

SRS Uncertainty: Linac and CyberKnife Uncertainties

Quality management for Breast Brachytherapy.

CODING GUIDELINES. Radiation Therapy. Effective January 1, 2019

Overview of MLC-based Linac Radiosurgery

Transition to Heterogeneity Corrections. Why have accurate dose algorithms?

Integrating the Radixact into a Highly Comprehensive Center

Image Fusion, Contouring, and Margins in SRS

Are Transmission Detectors a Necessary Tool for a Safe Patient Radiation Therapy Program?

IMRT/IGRT Patient Treatment: A Community Hospital Experience. Charles M. Able, Assistant Professor

Variable Dose Rate Dynamic Conformal Arc Therapy (DCAT) for SABR Lung: From static fields to dynamic arcs using Monaco 5.10

Range Uncertainties in Proton Therapy

Patterns of Care in Patients with Cervical Cancer:

Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for treatment of post-operative high grade glioma in the right parietal region of brain

Accuracy Requirements and Uncertainty Considerations in Radiation Therapy

PGY-1. Resident Review Session Schedule

Linac or Non-Linac Demystifying And Decoding The Physics Of SBRT/SABR

ART for Cervical Cancer: Dosimetry and Technical Aspects

RADIATION ONCOLOGY RESIDENCY PROGRAM Competency Evaluation of Resident

Jean Pouliot, PhD Professor and Vice Chair, Department of Radiation Oncology, Director of Physics Division

Accurate Accurate boost or Simply Accuboost

IMRT QUESTIONNAIRE. Address: Physicist: Research Associate: Dosimetrist: Responsible Radiation Oncologist(s)

8/3/2016. Implementation of Pencil Beam Scanning (PBS) Proton Therapy Treatment for Liver Patients. Acknowledgement. Overview

Discuss the general planning concepts used in proton planning. Review the unique handling of CTV / ITV / PTV when treating with protons

Application of Implanted Markers in Proton Therapy. Course Outline. McLaren Proton Therapy Center Karmanos Cancer Institute McLaren - Flint

S L I D E 0 S L I D E 1 S L I D E 2

Defining Target Volumes and Organs at Risk: a common language

QA for Clinical Dosimetry with Emphasis on Clinical Trials

Special Procedures Rotation I/II SBRT, SRS, TBI, and TSET

CRANIOMAXILLOFACIAL. Rethinking Possibilities, Reshaping Lives

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) Margaret Colquhoun

8/2/2017. Acknowledgement. Disclaimer. How to manage radiotherapy patients with CIED from initial consult to treatment: TG203 recommendations

Varian Acuity BrachyTherapy Suite One Room Integrated Image-Guided Brachytherapy

TG100 Implementation Guide - FTA

Changing Paradigms in Radiotherapy

Clinical Trial Credentialing:

2013 Medical Errors Radioac3ve Materials

Motion gating and tracking techniques: overview and recent developments

IGRT Solution for the Living Patient and the Dynamic Treatment Problem

Inter-fractional Positioning Study for Breast Cancer with Proton Therapy using a 3D Surface Imaging System

Quality assurance and credentialing requirements for sites using inverse planned IMRT Techniques

Medical Events. Florida Department of Health Division of Emergency Preparedness and Community Support Bureau of Radiation Control

Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Andrew K. Lee, MD, MPH Director Proton Therapy Center

LA GESTIONE DELLE NUOVE TECNOLOGIE Cinzia Iotti. Azienda Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova IRCCS Reggio Emilia

8/2/2018. Working on MRI Simulator for MP who are NOT trained in MRI. Background What does trained in MRI mean?

EORTC Member Facility Questionnaire

Eric E. Klein, Ph.D. Chair of TG-142

MOTION MANAGEMENT & PATIENT SAFETY REDEFINED!

Predicting Maximum Pacemaker/ICD Dose in SAVI HDR Brachytherapy

Leila E. A. Nichol Royal Surrey County Hospital

Fiducial-Free Lung Tracking and Treatment with the CyberKnife System: A Non-Invasive Approach

Transcription:

Best Practices for Physics Plan and Chart Review: Report of AAPM Task Group 7 Risk analysis to inform physics plan review recommendations Grace Gwe-Ya Kim, PhD, DABR Radiation Medicine & Applied Sciences Disclosures and Acknowledgements Member of TG7 Volunteers: Review FMs (RTTs, CMDs, MDs), Scoring FMs Some Material and Slides Provided by Other TG7 Members Eric Ford Stephanie Parker Anne Greener Luis Fong de los Santos Perry Johnson Debbie Schofield

Workflow for TG7 Risk Assessment Study Develop Online FMEA Tool on AAPM Website Create Process Map Create Database of Failure Modes Enter Failure Modes and Causes into Online Tool Score FM s using Abbreviated Scale Analyze Results of Point Scale FMEA Workflow for TG7 Risk Assessment Study 7 8 9 0 Remove Low Scoring FM s & Combine Causes Score FM s using Standard 0 Point Scale Analyze Results of 0 Point Scale FMEA Correlate FM s with Survey Results Develop Recommendations

Create Database of Failure Modes Experience of TG-7 Members Individual Lists Generated by Each TG Member Excel Workbook with Worksheet for Each Process Step SAFRON Event Identified Potential to be detected on physics review List compared to Current Lists 8 FM/Cause Combinations Added to Database https://rpop.iaea.org/rpop/rpop/modules/login/safronregister.htm Create Database of Failure Modes Validation of Database Against RO-ILS events related to Physics Checks identified by E. Ford List compared to database generated by Task Group Excellent agreement 97 of events already included in database 0 of the events resulted in new causes events resulted in new failure modes of of minor importance and excluded https://www.astro.org/ro-ils.aspx

Generate the final list of FMs Started with 9 Failure Mode/ Cause Combinations Eliminated 8 that Fell Below the Threshold Remaining - Still too many Combined Causes for Many FM s Final Result for 0 Point Scale Scoring 8 FM/Cause Combinations Review the final list of FMs volunteers from various institutions 8 Radiation therapists Physicians dosimetrists Score FMs using Standard 0 Point Scale Scoring Open June 7- July, 0 to. Hours to Complete Scoring ~. FM/min

Analyze Results of 0 Point Scale FMEA Severity 9 8 7 0 RPN range: 0. -. Severity range:. - 8. RPN > 00: 0 FMs 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 RPN Rank0 00 Hi-RPN FMs of EBRT Process Step Tx Plan Pt Assmnt Tx Plan Tx Plan Pt Assmnt Failure Mode Cause RPN "Wrong" or inaccurate MD contours Miscommunication about prior dose, pacemaker, pregnancy Improper margins for PTV Unintentional reirradiation of a previously treated area Incorrect or missing pathology Workflow/Communication Issue, e.g., Attending MD does not review resident contours, MD does not clearly identify dose levels, Incorrect CT dataset, Fusion incorrect or with wrong image set, Target motion not considered, Wrong set of contours imported Information not communicated or available information incorrect Structural issues, e.g. policies and procedures inadequate or non-existent, margins not provided Technical Issue: Inadequate medical records in hospital data base, Re-creation of prior plan incorrect, Missing previous RT dose structure, No records available (foreign country, distant past, lost).. 98.0 8. pathology report incorrect or not read by MD 80.

External Tx. Weekly & End of Total 8 FMs are generated and scored. Pre-tx. review & verification On-tx. Quality management Post-tx. completion categories of FMs for weekly chart review FMs during the pre-tx review and verification. FMs to obtain or record the requested information. FMs for changes in prescription. FMs for Tx delivery. External Tx. Weekly & End of 8 7 SEVERITY 0 RPN>9 or S> 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 RPN

Hi-RPN FMs of weekly review & EOT Rank Failure Mode Process Step Cause RPN Incorrect dose administered Incorrect orientation of electron cutout 70.00 Not Catchable Incorrect dose administered Patient not able to physically maintain position for treatment.00 Fraction not delivered as intended Inattention by physician during image review 9.00 Not Catchable Incorrect dose administered Incorrect manual shift used.00 Not Catchable Collision of delivery system with patient fields not checked pretreatment.00 Not Catchable GYN HDR Plan Check - FMEA Scope: GYN Intracavity HDR Initial Plan Check Process Steps Applicator Placement Imaging Preprocedure Postprocedure Total 09 Failure Modes scored Applicator Placement: FMs Imaging: FMs : FMs Recommendations will be developed based on FMEA results after cross-comparison with a collection of checklists. 7

GYN HDR Initial Plan Check - FMEA SEVERITY 0 RPN range:..8 Severity range:.-. 0 0 0 0 80 00 0 0 RPN Hi-RPN HDR FMs Rank Failure Mode Process Step Wrong MD contours Catheters digitized incorrectly (e.g. wrong offset, digitizing something other than the catheter) Incorrect treatment length planned Wrong distal reference length entered into TPS Incorrect measurement and/or documentation of channel lengths or number Imaging Cause Physical environment - interruptions, MD rushed, etc. Planner not familiar with procedure or confused - poor training, vague policies, incomplete documentation, etc. Communication - MD intention not relayed properly to planner Planner not familiar with procedure or confused - poor training, vague policies, incomplete documentation, etc. Slip or lapse caused by inattention, distraction, etc. - staff misread measurement RPN.8 0.8 8.9 98. 9.9 8

Proton Plan Check - FMEA Total 7 proton specific FMs scoring: cross-comparison on-going Rank Failure Mode Step Cause RPN Tumor growth while waiting for treatment start Strong, unrepairable metal artifacts Over-dosing normal structures Inaccurate proton range calculation Adaptive plan was not created Simulation On- Quality Management Waiting for insurance clearance 0.8 patient has extensive or high density metal causing severe CT scan artifacts Prior radiation was not considered carefully Failure to consider organ motion or setup uncertainties in the beam path Failed to review or detect any significant/meaningful changes in patient's anatomy in the beam path due to inadequate staff training or no wellestablished guideline etc. 8.7.7 7.9. Summary Risk assessment has been completed. EBRT physics plan review Weekly chart review/eto GYN HDR Proton Therapy Cross - check with the survey result in progress. Develop recommendations in progress based on FMEA & survey results. 9