Multi-phase failure modes and effects analysis for low dose bilateral whole lung irradiation of COVID-19 positive patients requiring respiratory ventilation.

PURPOSE: To identify high-priority risks in a clinical trial investigating the use of radiation to alleviate COVID-19 pneumonia using a multi-phase failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). METHODS: A comprehensive FMEA survey of 133 possible causes of failure was developed for the clinical trial workflow (Phase I). The occurrence, severity, and detection risk of each possible cause of failure was scored by three medical physicists. High-risk potential failure modes were identified using the risk priority number (RPN) and severity scores, which were re-scored by 13 participants in radiation oncology (Phase II). Phase II survey scores were evaluated to identify steps requiring possible intervention and examine risk perception patterns. The Phase II participants provided consensus scores as a group. RESULTS: Thirty high-priority failure modes were selected for the Phase II survey. Strong internal consistency was shown in both surveys using Cronbach's alpha (αc ≥ 0.85). The 10 failures with the largest median RPN values concerned SARS-CoV-2 transmission (N = 6), wrong treatment (N = 3), and patient injury (N = 1). The median RPN was larger for COVID-related failures than other failure types, primarily due to the perceived difficulty of failure detection. Group re-scoring retained 8/10 of the highest-priority risk steps that were identified in the Phase II process, and discussion revealed interpretation differences of process steps and risk evaluation. Participants who were directly involved with the trial working group had stronger agreement on severity scores than those who were not. CONCLUSIONS: The high ranking of failures concerning SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggest that these steps may require additional quality management intervention when treating critically ill COVID-19+ patients. The results also suggest that a multi-phase FMEA survey led by a facilitator may be a useful tool for assessing risks in radiation oncology procedures, supporting future efforts to adapt FMEA to clinical procedures.

Blinding of Residency Applications in Medical Physics: Promises and Pitfalls.

Purpose: The feasibility of blinding applications for a medical physics residency program has yet to be demonstrated in the literature. We explore the application of an automated approach with human review and intervention to blind applications during the annual medical physics residency review cycle. Methods and Materials: Applications were blinded using an automated process and used for the first phase of residency review in the program. We retrospectively compared self-reported demographic and gender data with blinded and nonblinded cohorts from 2 sequential years of review from a medical physics residency program. Demographic data were analyzed comparing applicants with candidates selected to move to the next phase of the review process. Interrater agreement was also evaluated from the applicant reviewers. Results: We show the feasibility of blinding applications for a medical physics residency program. We observed no more than a 3% difference between the gender selection within the first phase of application review but greater differences when examining race and ethnicity between the 2 methods. The greatest difference was shown to be between Asian and White candidates, where there are statistical differences in the scores in the rubric categories of essay and overall impression. Conclusions: We suggest that each training program critically evaluate its selection criteria for potential sources of bias within the review process. We recommend further critical investigation of processes to promote equity and inclusion to ensure the methods and outcomes are aligned with the mission of the program. Finally, we recommend that the common application provide an option for blinding applications at the source so this can be an option to facilitate efforts for evaluating unconscious bias in the review process.