4.2 Article

A failure modes and effects analysis study for gynecologic high-dose-rate brachytherapy

期刊

BRACHYTHERAPY
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 866-875

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2015.06.007

关键词

Gynecologic oncology; Brachytherapy; Quality assurance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To improve the quality of our gynecologic brachytherapy practice and reduce reportable events, we performed a process analysis after the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The FMEA included a multidisciplinary team specifically targeting the tandem and ring brachytherapy procedure. The treatment process was divided into six subprocesses and failure modes (FMs). A scoring guideline was developed based on published FMEA studies and assigned through team consensus. FMs were ranked according to overall and severity scores. FM ranking >5% of the highest risk priority number (RPN) score was selected for in-depth analysis. The efficiency of each existing quality assurance to detect each FM was analyzed. RESULTS: We identified 170 FMs, and 99 were scored. RPN scores ranged from 1 to 192. Of the 13 highest-ranking FMs with RPN scores >80, half had severity scores of 8 or 9, with no mode having severity of 10. Of these FM, the originating process steps were simulation (5), treatment planning (5), treatment delivery (2), and insertion (1). Our high-ranking FM focused on communication and the potential for applicator movement. Evaluation of the efficiency and the comprehensiveness of our quality assurance program showed coverage of all but three of the top 49 FMs ranked by RPN. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first reported FMEA process for a comprehensive gynecologic brachytherapy procedure overview. We were able to identify FMs that could potentially and severely impact the patient's treatment. We continue to adjust our quality assurance program based on the results of our FMEA analysis. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Brachytherapy Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据