放疗科重新评估肺部 SBRT 失败模式及影响分析的临床效果。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Clinical & Translational Oncology Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-03 DOI:10.1007/s12094-024-03539-9
Sergi Benavente, Alexandra Giraldo, Alejandro Seoane, Mónica Ramos, Ramona Vergés
{"title":"放疗科重新评估肺部 SBRT 失败模式及影响分析的临床效果。","authors":"Sergi Benavente, Alexandra Giraldo, Alejandro Seoane, Mónica Ramos, Ramona Vergés","doi":"10.1007/s12094-024-03539-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The increasing complexity of radiation treatments can hinder its clinical success. This study aimed to better understand evolving risks by re-evaluating a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) in lung SBRT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An experienced multidisciplinary team conducted an FMEA and made a reassessment 3 years later. A process map was developed with potential failure modes (FMs) identified. High-risk FMs and their possible causes and corrective actions were determined. The initial FMEA analysis was compared to gain a deeper perspective.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 232 FMs. The high-risk processes were plan approval, target contouring, and patient evaluation. The corrective measures were based on stricter standardization of plan approval, pre-planning peer review, and a supporting pretreatment checklist, which substantially reduced the risk priority number in the revised FMEA. In the FMEA reassessment, we observed that the increased complexity and number of patients receiving lung SBRT conditioned a more substantial presence of human factors and communication errors as causal conditions and a potential wrong dose as a final effect.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Conducting a lung SBRT FMEA analysis has identified high-risk conditions that have been effectively mitigated in an FMEA reanalysis. Plan approval has shown to be a weak link in the process. The increasing complexity of treatments and patient numbers have shifted causal factors toward human failure and communication errors. The potential of a wrong dose as a final effect augments in this scenario. We propose that digital and artificial intelligence options are needed to mitigate potential errors in high-complexity and high-risk RT scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":50685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical & Translational Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"3142-3149"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical effects of re-evaluating a lung SBRT failure mode and effects analysis in a radiotherapy department.\",\"authors\":\"Sergi Benavente, Alexandra Giraldo, Alejandro Seoane, Mónica Ramos, Ramona Vergés\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12094-024-03539-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The increasing complexity of radiation treatments can hinder its clinical success. This study aimed to better understand evolving risks by re-evaluating a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) in lung SBRT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An experienced multidisciplinary team conducted an FMEA and made a reassessment 3 years later. A process map was developed with potential failure modes (FMs) identified. High-risk FMs and their possible causes and corrective actions were determined. The initial FMEA analysis was compared to gain a deeper perspective.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 232 FMs. The high-risk processes were plan approval, target contouring, and patient evaluation. The corrective measures were based on stricter standardization of plan approval, pre-planning peer review, and a supporting pretreatment checklist, which substantially reduced the risk priority number in the revised FMEA. In the FMEA reassessment, we observed that the increased complexity and number of patients receiving lung SBRT conditioned a more substantial presence of human factors and communication errors as causal conditions and a potential wrong dose as a final effect.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Conducting a lung SBRT FMEA analysis has identified high-risk conditions that have been effectively mitigated in an FMEA reanalysis. Plan approval has shown to be a weak link in the process. The increasing complexity of treatments and patient numbers have shifted causal factors toward human failure and communication errors. The potential of a wrong dose as a final effect augments in this scenario. We propose that digital and artificial intelligence options are needed to mitigate potential errors in high-complexity and high-risk RT scenarios.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical & Translational Oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"3142-3149\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical & Translational Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-024-03539-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical & Translational Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-024-03539-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:放射治疗的复杂性不断增加,可能会阻碍其临床成功。本研究旨在通过重新评估肺部 SBRT 的故障模式和影响分析 (FMEA),更好地了解不断变化的风险:一个经验丰富的多学科团队进行了一次 FMEA 分析,并在 3 年后进行了重新评估。绘制了流程图,确定了潜在的故障模式(FMs)。确定了高风险故障模式及其可能的原因和纠正措施。对最初的 FMEA 分析进行比较,以获得更深入的视角:结果:我们确定了 232 个故障模式。结果:我们发现了 232 个故障,其中高风险流程包括计划审批、目标轮廓和患者评估。纠正措施基于更严格的计划审批标准化、计划前同行评审和支持性预处理清单,这大大降低了经修订的 FMEA 中的风险优先级编号。在对 FMEA 的重新评估中,我们注意到,接受肺部 SBRT 治疗的患者的复杂性和数量增加,人为因素和沟通错误作为因果条件的存在更为严重,而潜在的错误剂量则是最终影响因素:进行肺部 SBRT FMEA 分析发现了高风险情况,这些情况在 FMEA 重新分析中得到了有效缓解。计划审批是整个流程中的薄弱环节。治疗的复杂性和患者人数的增加使人为失误和沟通错误成为致因。在这种情况下,错误剂量作为最终结果的可能性会增加。我们建议需要数字和人工智能方案来减少高复杂性和高风险 RT 方案中的潜在错误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Clinical effects of re-evaluating a lung SBRT failure mode and effects analysis in a radiotherapy department.

Purpose: The increasing complexity of radiation treatments can hinder its clinical success. This study aimed to better understand evolving risks by re-evaluating a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) in lung SBRT.

Methods: An experienced multidisciplinary team conducted an FMEA and made a reassessment 3 years later. A process map was developed with potential failure modes (FMs) identified. High-risk FMs and their possible causes and corrective actions were determined. The initial FMEA analysis was compared to gain a deeper perspective.

Results: We identified 232 FMs. The high-risk processes were plan approval, target contouring, and patient evaluation. The corrective measures were based on stricter standardization of plan approval, pre-planning peer review, and a supporting pretreatment checklist, which substantially reduced the risk priority number in the revised FMEA. In the FMEA reassessment, we observed that the increased complexity and number of patients receiving lung SBRT conditioned a more substantial presence of human factors and communication errors as causal conditions and a potential wrong dose as a final effect.

Conclusions: Conducting a lung SBRT FMEA analysis has identified high-risk conditions that have been effectively mitigated in an FMEA reanalysis. Plan approval has shown to be a weak link in the process. The increasing complexity of treatments and patient numbers have shifted causal factors toward human failure and communication errors. The potential of a wrong dose as a final effect augments in this scenario. We propose that digital and artificial intelligence options are needed to mitigate potential errors in high-complexity and high-risk RT scenarios.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
240
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Oncology is an international journal devoted to fostering interaction between experimental and clinical oncology. It covers all aspects of research on cancer, from the more basic discoveries dealing with both cell and molecular biology of tumour cells, to the most advanced clinical assays of conventional and new drugs. In addition, the journal has a strong commitment to facilitating the transfer of knowledge from the basic laboratory to the clinical practice, with the publication of educational series devoted to closing the gap between molecular and clinical oncologists. Molecular biology of tumours, identification of new targets for cancer therapy, and new technologies for research and treatment of cancer are the major themes covered by the educational series. Full research articles on a broad spectrum of subjects, including the molecular and cellular bases of disease, aetiology, pathophysiology, pathology, epidemiology, clinical features, and the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of cancer, will be considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Multi‑index comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and response mechanism of immunotherapy in non‑small cell lung cancer. A retrospective analysis of the clinicopathological features and prognostic value of MAPK12 protein expression in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Identification of SMC2 and SMC4 as prognostic markers in breast cancer through bioinformatics analysis. ITGB4 is a prognostic biomarker and correlated with lung adenocarcinoma brain metastasis. The value of combined MRI, enhanced CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of recurrence and metastasis after surgery for ovarian cancer.
×
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