Mosaly Prithima R, Mazur Lukasz, Miller Seth, Eblan Michael, Falchook Aaron, Goldin Gregg, Burkhart Kathy, LaChapell Dana, Adams Robert, Chera Bishamjith, Marks Lawrence B
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015 Mar-Apr;5(2):113-9. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2014.05.010. Epub 2014 Jul 24.
To assess the applicability of the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) model for analyzing events in a radiation oncology environment by comparing the HFACS analysis results between novices and experts.
Four novices (resident physicians, 2-4 postgraduate years) volunteered to participate and were asked to independently perform the HFACS analysis on the selected 30 events. The events were divided into the following 2 sets: (1) the description of events was given in detail (eg, the conditions under which the events occurred including information about root causes of error); (2) the description of events was given without detailed information. Each novice's categorization of events into 4 main and 12 sublevels were compared with expert categorization ("gold standard") and used for statistical analysis. Analysis of variance was performed to test the difference in mean agreement with the expert-defined gold standard between the novices across the 4 main levels; and across the 12 sublevels independently.
There were no significant differences in mean agreement with the expert-defined gold standard among the 4 novices (novice versus novice; P > .05) across the 4 main and 12 sublevels, respectively. There was a significant difference in mean agreement with the expert-defined gold standard among the 4 main levels and 12 sublevels (P < .05) across the 4 novices. For the 4 main levels, there was a significant difference in agreement with the expert-defined gold standard for events with detailed information versus events without detailed information provided across the 4 novices. The additional information did not improve mean agreement on the 12 sublevels.
Novices learned to use the HFACS model for higher level analysis (4 main levels) with 1 hour training. Regardless of the amount of detail provided in the event description, the study results indicate a need of formal training for novices to better understand the definition and their interpretation at the 12 sublevel analyses.
通过比较新手和专家对人因分析与分类系统(HFACS)模型的分析结果,评估该模型在放射肿瘤学环境中分析事件的适用性。
四名新手(住院医师,研究生2 - 4年级)自愿参与,并被要求对选定的30个事件独立进行HFACS分析。这些事件分为以下两组:(1)详细给出事件描述(例如,事件发生的条件,包括错误的根本原因信息);(2)给出的事件描述没有详细信息。将每个新手对事件的分类分为4个主要级别和12个子级别,并与专家分类(“金标准”)进行比较,用于统计分析。进行方差分析,以检验新手在4个主要级别以及独立的12个子级别上与专家定义的金标准的平均一致性差异。
在4个主要级别和12个子级别上,4名新手之间与专家定义的金标准的平均一致性分别无显著差异(新手与新手比较;P > 0.05)。在4名新手的4个主要级别和12个子级别上,与专家定义的金标准的平均一致性存在显著差异(P < 0.05)。对于4个主要级别,在4名新手当中,有详细信息的事件与没有详细信息的事件在与专家定义的金标准的一致性方面存在显著差异。额外信息并未提高在12个子级别上的平均一致性。
新手通过1小时的培训学会了使用HFACS模型进行更高级别的分析(4个主要级别)。无论事件描述中提供的细节数量如何,研究结果表明新手需要接受正规培训,以便在12个子级别分析中更好地理解定义及其解释。