[Root Cause Analysis for Incident Reporting Cases of Radiological Technologists Based on Years of Experience].

Ryu Mabuchi, Ryota Akiho, Hiroshi Nakai
{"title":"[Root Cause Analysis for Incident Reporting Cases of Radiological Technologists Based on Years of Experience].","authors":"Ryu Mabuchi, Ryota Akiho, Hiroshi Nakai","doi":"10.6009/jjrt.2024-1510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Root Cause Analysis (RCA) of reported incident reports can lead to measures to prevent the recurrence of accidents. The purpose of this study is to clarify the relationship between the occurrence of cases, causal factors, contributing factors, and the experience years of the reporters classified into three groups: less than 2 years, 3 to less than 5 years, and more than 5 years, for incident reports subject to RCA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From April 2018 to March 2023, a chi-square test was conducted between each item extracted from 239 cases subject to RCA and the experience years of the reporters, with a significance level of less than 5% considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding the occurrence cases, radiological technologists with longer experience had more misidentified a patient and fewer errors in imaging conditions and range, while radiological technologists with 3 to less than 5 years of experience had more errors in imaging conditions (p<0.001). In terms of occurrence factors, radiological technologists with 3 to less than 5 years of experience had more cases of insufficient confirmation (p<0.05). For contributing factors, there was no significant difference between the experience year groups (p=0.19), with \"Impatience\" being the most common factor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This survey suggested that in incident reports of radiological technologists, \"Impatience\" is a contributing factor that can occur regardless of years of experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":74309,"journal":{"name":"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.2024-1510","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Root Cause Analysis (RCA) of reported incident reports can lead to measures to prevent the recurrence of accidents. The purpose of this study is to clarify the relationship between the occurrence of cases, causal factors, contributing factors, and the experience years of the reporters classified into three groups: less than 2 years, 3 to less than 5 years, and more than 5 years, for incident reports subject to RCA.

Methods: From April 2018 to March 2023, a chi-square test was conducted between each item extracted from 239 cases subject to RCA and the experience years of the reporters, with a significance level of less than 5% considered significant.

Results: Regarding the occurrence cases, radiological technologists with longer experience had more misidentified a patient and fewer errors in imaging conditions and range, while radiological technologists with 3 to less than 5 years of experience had more errors in imaging conditions (p<0.001). In terms of occurrence factors, radiological technologists with 3 to less than 5 years of experience had more cases of insufficient confirmation (p<0.05). For contributing factors, there was no significant difference between the experience year groups (p=0.19), with "Impatience" being the most common factor.

Conclusion: This survey suggested that in incident reports of radiological technologists, "Impatience" is a contributing factor that can occur regardless of years of experience.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[基于工作年限的放射技术人员事故报告案例根本原因分析]。
目的:对上报的事故报告进行根本原因分析(RCA),可以找到防止事故再次发生的措施。本研究旨在厘清受 RCA 调查的事故报告中,案件发生率、成因因素、促成因素与报告人工作年限之间的关系,报告人工作年限分为 2 年以下、3 至 5 年以下、5 年以上三组:从 2018 年 4 月至 2023 年 3 月,对 239 例受 RCA 调查的病例中提取的各项目与报告人的工作年限进行卡方检验,显著性水平小于 5%为有意义:结果:在发生的病例中,工作年限较长的放射技师误诊患者较多,成像条件和范围错误较少,而工作年限在 3 至 5 年以下的放射技师成像条件错误较多(p 结论:本次调查表明,在发生的放射技师事故报告中,工作年限较长的放射技师误诊患者较多,成像条件和范围错误较少:这项调查表明,在放射技术人员的事故报告中,"不耐烦 "是一个诱因,无论工作年限长短,都有可能发生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[Long-term Reproducibility Evaluation of Fluoroscopy Dose Rate in Angiography Equipment]. [Root Cause Analysis for Incident Reporting Cases of Radiological Technologists Based on Years of Experience]. [Effect of Training Data Differences on Accuracy in MR Image Generation Using Pix2pix]. [Noise Characteristics of Summary Maps for Brain CT Perfusion: A Simulation Study Using a Digital Phantom and Clinical Images]. [Effect of Pulse Wave Synchronization on T1 Value in Cardiac T1 Mapping: Is Pulse Wave Synchronization a Substitute for Electrocardiogram Gating?]
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1