DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Basic Data Analysis of the Quality Control for Patient Safety in Department of Radiation Oncologyat Yeungnam University Hospital

영남대학교병원의 환자안전을 위한 정도관리의 기초자료 분석

  • Oh, Se An (Department of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University Medical Center) ;
  • Kim, Sung Kyu (Department of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine) ;
  • Yea, Ji Woon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kang, Min Kyu (Department of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Joon Ha (Department of Medical Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Rena (Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University)
  • 오세안 (영남대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 김성규 (영남대학교 의과대학 방사선종양학교실) ;
  • 예지원 (영남대학교 의과대학 방사선종양학교실) ;
  • 강민규 (영남대학교 의과대학 방사선종양학교실) ;
  • 이준하 (영남대학교 의과대학 생화학학교실) ;
  • 이레나 (이화여자대학교 의과대학 방사선종양학교실)
  • Received : 2015.05.16
  • Accepted : 2015.06.18
  • Published : 2015.06.30

Abstract

In order to establish the quality control on patient safety following the guideline presented by American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) TG-100 committee, we aim to analyze the modes based on errors occurred during treatment of patients at the radiation oncology department at Yeungnam University Hospital and establish a quality control guideline for patient safety when patient-centered radiation treatment is conducted. We aim to analyze the errors that can occur during radiation treatment at the radiation department, and assess the frequency of error, the severity of error affecting patients, and probability of proceeding without noticing error, with scores. The places where errors can take place were divided into CT simulation treatment room, treatment planning room, and treatment room for the analysis. In CT simulation treatment room, an error from using the immobilization device showed the highest Risk Priority Number (RPN) value of 60, and an error from simulation treatment information input showed the lowest of 6. In treatment planning room, an error from selecting the radiation dose calculation model showed the highest RPN value of 168, and an error of patient treatment start date showed the lowest of 36. In treatment room, a Table Bar error showed the highest RPN value of 252, a weight change error showed 190, and a Pillow error showed the lowest of 24.

미국의학물리학회(AAPM) TG-100 위원회에서 제시하고 있는 가이드 라인에 준하여 환자 안전에 대한 정도관리를 수립하기 위하여 영남대학교병원 방사선종양학과에서 환자를 치료하는 중에 발생한 오류들을 중심으로 오류 유형을 분석하여, 환자중심의 방사선치료를 시행할 때 환자 안전을 위한 정도관리의 가이드 라인을 정립하고자 한다. 방사선종양학과에서 방사선 치료를 하는데 있어서 일으킬 수 있는 오류들을 분석하여 오류를 일으키는 빈도와 오류가 일어날 때 환자 에게 미치는 심각성과 오류가 일어났을 때 감지하지 못하고 지나치는 확률을 점수로 평가하고자 한다. 오류를 일으킬 수 있는 곳으로는 CT 모의치료실, 치료계획실, 치료실로 나누어 조사하였다. CT 모의치료실에서는 고정기구 사용의 오류가 위험중요지수의 값이 60으로 가장 높았고, 모의치료 정보입력의 오류가 6으로 가장 낮게 나타났다. 치료계획실에서는 선량계산 모델 선택의 오류가 위험중요지수의 값이 168로 가장 높았고, 환자의 치료 시작일 오류가 36으로 가장 낮게 나타났다. 치료실에서는 테이블 Bar 오류가 위험중요지수의 값이 252으로 가장 높았고, 체중변화 오류가 190을 나타내었으며, 배게 오류가 24로 가장 낮게 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. Rao M, Wu J, Cao D, et al: Dosimetric impact of breathing motion in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment using image-modulated radiotherapy andvolumetric modulated arc therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 83, E251 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.12.001
  2. Choa KSC, Practical essentials of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, 2nd, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia (2005)
  3. Palta JR, Mackie TR, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy/The State of the Art, Medical Physics Publishing, Wisconsin 2003
  4. Oh SA, Kang MK, Yea JW, Kim SK, Oh YK: Study of the penumbra for high-energy photon beams with GafchromicTM EBT2 Films. J. Korean Phy. Soc. 60(11), 1973 (2012) https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.60.1973
  5. AAPM TG-100: A new paradigm for quality management in radiation therapy: http://chapter.aapm.org/pennohio/2013FallSympPresentations/SI11_Saiful_Huq.pdf (2013)
  6. The philosophy of TG 100: What it is and what it is not: http://www.aapm.org/meetings/amos2/pdf/35-9921-51509-218.pdf (2014)
  7. Sara B, Marie CC, Anna C, et al: Application of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to pretreatment phases in tomotherapy. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 14(5):265-277 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i5.4329
  8. Huq MS, Fraass BA, Dunscombe PB, et al: A Method for evaluating quality assurance needs in radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 71(1):S170-S173 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.081
  9. Ford EC, Gaudette R, Myers L, et al: Evaluation of safety in a radiation oncology setting using failure mode and effects analysis. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 74(3):852-858 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.10.038
  10. Shafiq J, Barton M, Noble D, et al: An international review of patient safety measures in radiotherapy practice. Radiother Oncol. 92(1):15-21 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.03.007
  11. Ishikura S: Quality assurance of radiotherapy in cancer treatment: toward improvement of patient safety and quality of care. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 38(11):723-9 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyn112

Cited by

  1. Comparative Analysis of Terminology and Classification Related to Risk Management of Radiotherapy vol.27, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2016.27.3.131