Using a daily monitoring system to reduce treatment position override rates in external beam radiation therapy.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To report our 7-year experience with a daily monitoring system to significantly reduce couch position overrides and errors in patient treatment positioning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment couch position override data were extracted from a radiation oncology-specific electronic medical record system from 2012 to 2018. During this period, we took several actions to reduce couch position overrides, including reducing the number of tolerance tables from 18 to 6, tightening tolerance limits, enforcing time outs, documenting reasons for overrides, and timely reviewing of overrides made from previous treatment day. The tolerance tables included treatment categories for head and neck (HN) (with/without cone beam CT [CBCT]), body (with/without CBCT), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and clinical setup for electron beams. For the same time period, we also reported treatment positioning-related incidents that were recorded in our departmental incident report system. To verify our tolerance limits, we further examined couch shifts after daily kilovoltage CBCT (kV-CBCT) for the patients treated from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2018, the override rate decreased from 11.2% to 1.6%/year, whereas the number of fractions treated in the department increased by 23%. The annual patient positioning error rate was also reduced from 0.019% in 2012, to 0.004% in 2017 and 0% in 2018. For patients treated under daily kV-CBCT guidance from 2018 to 2021, the applied couch shifts after imaging registration that exceeded the tolerance limits were low, <1% for HN, <1.2% for body, and <2.6% for SBRT. CONCLUSIONS: The daily monitoring system, which enables a timely review of overrides, significantly reduced the number of treatment couch position overrides and ultimately resulted in a decrease in treatment positioning errors. For patients treated with daily kV-CBCT guidance, couch position shifts after CBCT image guidance demonstrated a low rate of exceeding the set tolerance.

Departmental Workload and Physician Errors in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to evaluate measures of increased departmental workload in relation to the occurrence of physician-related errors and incidents reaching the patient in radiation oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All data were collected for the year 2013. Errors were defined as forms received by our departmental process improvement team; of these forms, only those relating to physicians were included in the study. Incidents were defined as serious errors reaching the patient requiring appropriate action; these were reported through a separate system. Workload measures included patient volumes and physician schedules and were obtained through departmental records for daily and monthly data. Errors and incidents were analyzed for relation with measures of workload using logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: Ten incidents occurred in the year. The number of patients treated per day was a significant factor relating to incidents (P < 0.003). However, the fraction of department physicians off-duty and the ratio of patients to physicians were not found to be significant factors relating to incidents. Ninety-one physician-related errors were identified, and the ratio of patients to physicians (rolling average) was a significant factor relating to errors (P < 0.03). The number of patients and the fraction of physicians off-duty were not significant factors relating to errors.A rapid increase in patient treatment visits may be another factor leading to errors and incidents. All incidents and 58% of errors occurred in months where there was an increase in the average number of fields treated per day from the previous month; 6 of the 10 incidents occurred in August, which had the highest average increase at 26%. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in departmental workload, especially rapid changes, may lead to higher occurrence of errors and incidents in radiation oncology. When the department is busy, physician errors may be perpetuated owing to an overwhelmed departmental checks system, leading to incidents reaching the patient. Insights into workload and workflow will allow for the development of targeted approaches to preventing errors and incidents.

Workflow enhancement (WE) improves safety in radiation oncology: putting the WE and team together.

PURPOSE: To review the impact of a workflow enhancement (WE) team in reducing treatment errors that reach patients within radiation oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: It was determined that flaws in our workflow and processes resulted in errors reaching the patient. The process improvement team (PIT) was developed in 2010 to reduce errors and was later modified in 2012 into the current WE team. Workflow issues and solutions were discussed in PIT and WE team meetings. Due to tensions within PIT that resulted in employee dissatisfaction, there was a 6-month hiatus between the end of PIT and initiation of the renamed/redesigned WE team. In addition to the PIT/WE team forms, the department had separate incident forms to document treatment errors reaching the patient. These incident forms are rapidly reviewed and monitored by our departmental and institutional quality and safety groups, reflecting how seriously these forms are treated. The number of these incident forms was compared before and after instituting the WE team. RESULTS: When PIT was disbanded, a number of errors seemed to occur in succession, requiring reinstitution and redesign of this team, rebranded the WE team. Interestingly, the number of incident forms per patient visits did not change when comparing 6 months during the PIT, 6 months during the hiatus, and the first 6 months after instituting the WE team (P=.85). However, 6 to 12 months after instituting the WE team, the number of incident forms per patient visits decreased (P=.028). After the WE team, employee satisfaction and commitment to quality increased as demonstrated by Gallup surveys, suggesting a correlation to the WE team. CONCLUSIONS: A team focused on addressing workflow and improving processes can reduce the number of errors reaching the patient. Time is necessary before a reduction in errors reaching patients will be seen.