skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: TU-FG-201-11: Evaluating the Validity of Prospective Risk Analysis Methods: A Comparison of Traditional FMEA and Modified Healthcare FMEA

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the ability of traditional Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and a light version of Healthcare FMEA (HFMEA), called Scenario analysis of FMEA (SAFER) by comparing their outputs in terms of the risks identified and their severity rankings. Methods: We applied two prospective methods of the quality management to surface image guided, linac-based radiosurgery (SIG-RS). For the traditional FMEA, decisions on how to improve an operation are based on risk priority number (RPN). RPN is a product of three indices: occurrence, severity and detectability. The SAFER approach; utilized two indices-frequency and severity-which were defined by a multidisciplinary team. A criticality matrix was divided into 4 categories; very low, low, high and very high. For high risk events, an additional evaluation was performed. Based upon the criticality of the process, it was decided if additional safety measures were needed and what they comprise. Results: Two methods were independently compared to determine if the results and rated risks were matching or not. Our results showed an agreement of 67% between FMEA and SAFER approaches for the 15 riskiest SIG-specific failure modes. The main differences between the two approaches were the distribution of the values and the failure modes (No.52,more » 54, 154) that have high SAFER scores do not necessarily have high FMEA RPN scores. In our results, there were additional risks identified by both methods with little correspondence. In the SAFER, when the risk score is determined, the basis of the established decision tree or the failure mode should be more investigated. Conclusion: The FMEA method takes into account the probability that an error passes without being detected. SAFER is inductive because it requires the identification of the consequences from causes, and semi-quantitative since it allow the prioritization of risks and mitigation measures, and thus is perfectly applicable to clinical parts of radiotherapy.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ;  [2]
  1. Myongji Hospital, Goyang-si (Korea, Republic of)
  2. University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22653992
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; HAZARDS; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; RISK ASSESSMENT; VISIBLE RADIATION

Citation Formats

Lah, J, Manger, R, and Kim, G. TU-FG-201-11: Evaluating the Validity of Prospective Risk Analysis Methods: A Comparison of Traditional FMEA and Modified Healthcare FMEA. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4957534.
Lah, J, Manger, R, & Kim, G. TU-FG-201-11: Evaluating the Validity of Prospective Risk Analysis Methods: A Comparison of Traditional FMEA and Modified Healthcare FMEA. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957534.
Lah, J, Manger, R, and Kim, G. 2016. "TU-FG-201-11: Evaluating the Validity of Prospective Risk Analysis Methods: A Comparison of Traditional FMEA and Modified Healthcare FMEA". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957534.
@article{osti_22653992,
title = {TU-FG-201-11: Evaluating the Validity of Prospective Risk Analysis Methods: A Comparison of Traditional FMEA and Modified Healthcare FMEA},
author = {Lah, J and Manger, R and Kim, G},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To examine the ability of traditional Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and a light version of Healthcare FMEA (HFMEA), called Scenario analysis of FMEA (SAFER) by comparing their outputs in terms of the risks identified and their severity rankings. Methods: We applied two prospective methods of the quality management to surface image guided, linac-based radiosurgery (SIG-RS). For the traditional FMEA, decisions on how to improve an operation are based on risk priority number (RPN). RPN is a product of three indices: occurrence, severity and detectability. The SAFER approach; utilized two indices-frequency and severity-which were defined by a multidisciplinary team. A criticality matrix was divided into 4 categories; very low, low, high and very high. For high risk events, an additional evaluation was performed. Based upon the criticality of the process, it was decided if additional safety measures were needed and what they comprise. Results: Two methods were independently compared to determine if the results and rated risks were matching or not. Our results showed an agreement of 67% between FMEA and SAFER approaches for the 15 riskiest SIG-specific failure modes. The main differences between the two approaches were the distribution of the values and the failure modes (No.52, 54, 154) that have high SAFER scores do not necessarily have high FMEA RPN scores. In our results, there were additional risks identified by both methods with little correspondence. In the SAFER, when the risk score is determined, the basis of the established decision tree or the failure mode should be more investigated. Conclusion: The FMEA method takes into account the probability that an error passes without being detected. SAFER is inductive because it requires the identification of the consequences from causes, and semi-quantitative since it allow the prioritization of risks and mitigation measures, and thus is perfectly applicable to clinical parts of radiotherapy.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4957534},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: Total Skin Electron Irradiation (TSEI) is a radiotherapy treatment which involves irradiating the entire body surface as homogeneously as possible. It is composed of an extensive multi-step technique in which quality management requires high consumption of resources and a fluid communication between the involved staff, necessary to improve the safety of treatment. The TG-100 proposes a new perspective of quality management in radiotherapy, presenting a systematic method of risk analysis throughout the global flow of the stages through the patient. The purpose of this work has been to apply TG-100 approach to the TSEI procedure in our institution. Methods:more » A multidisciplinary team specifically targeting TSEI procedure was formed, that met regularly and jointly developed the process map (PM), following TG-100 guidelines of the AAPM. This PM is a visual representation of the temporal flow of steps through the patient since start until the end of his stay in the radiotherapy service. Results: This is the first stage of the full risk analysis, which is being carried out in the center. The PM provides an overview of the process and facilitates the understanding of the team members who will participate in the subsequent analysis. Currently, the team is implementing the analysis of failure modes and effects (FMEA). The failure modes of each of the steps have been identified and assessors are assigning a value of severity (S), frequency of occurrence (O) and lack of detection (D) individually. To our knowledge, this is the first PM made for the TSEI. The developed PM can be useful for those centers that intend to implement the TSEI technique. Conclusion: The PM of TSEI technique has been established, as the first stage of full risk analysis, performed in a reference center in this treatment.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the differences between the Veteran Affairs Healthcare Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (HFMEA) and the AAPM Task Group 100 Failure and Effect Analysis (FMEA) risk assessment techniques in the setting of a stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) procedure were compared respectively. Understanding the differences in the techniques methodologies and outcomes will provide further insight into the applicability and utility of risk assessments exercises in radiation therapy. Methods: HFMEA risk assessment analysis was performed on a stereotactic radiosurgery procedure. A previous study from our institution completed a FMEA of our SRS procedure and the process map generated from this workmore » was used for the HFMEA. The process of performing the HFMEA scoring was analyzed, and the results from both analyses were compared. Results: The key differences between the two risk assessments are the scoring criteria for failure modes and identifying critical failure modes for potential hazards. The general consensus among the team performing the analyses was that scoring for the HFMEA was simpler and more intuitive then the FMEA. The FMEA identified 25 critical failure modes while the HFMEA identified 39. Seven of the FMEA critical failure modes were not identified by the HFMEA and 21 of the HFMEA critical failure modes were not identified by the FMEA. HFMEA as described by the Veteran Affairs provides guidelines on which failure modes to address first. Conclusion: HFMEA is a more efficient model for identifying gross risks in a process than FMEA. Clinics with minimal staff, time and resources can benefit from this type of risk assessment to eliminate or mitigate high risk hazards with nominal effort. FMEA can provide more in depth details but at the cost of elevated effort.« less
  • Purpose: To examine the power of the nodal ratio (NR) of positive/excised nodes in predicting postmastectomy locoregional recurrence (LRR) in patients with 1-3 positive nodes (N+) and in identifying cohorts at similar risk across independent data sets. Methods and Materials: Data from 82 patients with 1-3 N+ treated without postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) in the British Columbia (BC) randomized trial were compared with data from 462 patients treated without PMRT in prospective chemotherapy trials at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC). Kaplan-Meier LRR curves were compared between centers using the absolute number of N+ and nodal ratios. Results: The medianmore » number of excised nodes was 10 in BC and 16 in MDACC (p < 0.001). Examining LRR by number of N+, the 10-year LRR rate for patients with 1-3 N+ was higher in BC compared with MDACC (21.5% vs. 12.6%; p = 0.02). However, when examining LRR using NR, no differences were found between institutions. In patients with NR {<=} 0.20, the 10-year LRR rate was 17.7% BC vs. 10.9% MDACC (p = 0.27). In patients with NR {>=} 0.20, the 10-year LRR rate was 28.7% BC vs. 22.7% MDACC (p = 0.32). On Cox regression analysis, NR was a stronger prognostic factor compared with number of N +. Conclusions: In patients with 1-3 N+, evaluating nodal positivity using NR reduced inter-institutional differences in LRR estimates that may exist due to variations in numbers of nodes excised. Nodal ratio >0.20 was associated with LRR >20%, warranting PMRT consideration. Nodal ratio may be useful for extrapolating data from prospective trials to clinical practices in which axillary staging extent vary.« less
  • A prospective comparison of chest radiography, conventional tomography, and computed tomography (CT) in the detection or confirmation of solitary pulmonary nodules was made in 42 patients with high propensity for pulmonary metastases due to advanced local (Clark level IV or V) or regional malignant melanoma. Unequivocal nodules were revealed by chest radiography in 11 patients, conventional tomograhy in 16, and computed tomography in 20 patients. Both plain films and tomography in three of these 20 were normal, but follow-up verified pulmonary metastases. Computed tomography detected more pulmonary nodules than conventional tomography in 11 patients in addition to identifying lesions inmore » extrapulmonary sites. Therefore, chest CT is recommended before institution of immunotherapy or surgical removal of a solitary pulmonary melanoma metastasis. Once chemotherapy had been instituted for bulky regional or cutaneous involvement, however, the findings of either conventional or computed tomography were comparable in this study.« less