Johns Hopkins University, Department of Radiation Oncology, Baltimore, Maryland.
Johns Hopkins University, Department of Radiation Oncology, Baltimore, Maryland.
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018 Sep-Oct;8(5):e337-e345. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.04.016. Epub 2018 May 8.
The optimal approach to managing incident learning system (ILS) reports remains unclear. Here, we describe our experience with prospective coding of events reported to the ILS with comparisons of risk scores on the basis of event type and process map location.
Reported events were coded by type, origin, and method of discovery. Events were given a risk priority number (RPN) and near-miss risk index (NMRI) score. We compared workflow versus near-miss events with respect to origin and detection in the process map and by risk scores. A χ test was used to compare the differences between workflow and near-miss events. A comparison of RPN scores was done by independent t test.
During 2016, 1351 events were reported. Of these events, 1300 (96.2%) were workflow and 51 (3.8%) near-miss events. Workflow events were more likely to both originate (1041 of 1300 events; 81.2%) compared with near-miss events (31 of 51 events; 62.7%; P = .005) and be detected in pre-treatment (997 of 1300 events; 76.7%) compared with near-miss events (24 of 51 events; 47%; P < .001). Average occurrence (scale: 1-10) was 6.14 for workflow versus 3.33 for near-miss events (P < .001), average severity was 2.94 versus 7.35 (P < .001), and average detectability was 1.33 versus 4.67 (P < .001). Mean overall RPN was 22.4 for workflow versus 108.4 for near-miss events (P = .07) and mean NMRI was 1.16 versus 3.19, respectively. Events that originated and were detected in treatment delivery had the greatest mean overall RPN (38.2 and 32.1, respectively) and NMRI scores (1.62 and 1.6, respectively).
Our experience demonstrates that workflow event reports are far more common than near-misses and that near-miss events are more likely to both originate and be discovered in later treatment phases. The frequency of workflow reports highlights the imperative need for safety and operational teams to work collaboratively to maximize the benefit of ILS. We suggest a potential utility of the RPN system to guide mitigation strategies for future near-miss events.
管理事件学习系统(ILS)报告的最佳方法仍不清楚。在这里,我们描述了对向 ILS 报告的事件进行前瞻性编码的经验,并根据事件类型和流程图位置比较了风险评分。
报告的事件按类型、来源和发现方法进行编码。事件被赋予风险优先数(RPN)和近误风险指数(NMRI)评分。我们比较了流程图中事件的起源和检测方面的工作流程事件和近误事件,以及基于风险评分的比较。使用 χ 检验比较工作流程和近误事件之间的差异。使用独立 t 检验比较 RPN 评分的差异。
在 2016 年期间,报告了 1351 起事件。其中,1300 起(96.2%)为工作流程事件,51 起(3.8%)为近误事件。工作流程事件更有可能起源(1300 起事件中的 1041 起;81.2%),而近误事件(51 起事件中的 31 起;62.7%;P =.005),并且更有可能在预处理(1300 起事件中的 997 起;76.7%)中被检测到,而近误事件(51 起事件中的 24 起;47%;P <.001)。平均发生率(范围:1-10)为工作流程的 6.14 与近误事件的 3.33(P <.001),平均严重程度为 2.94 与 7.35(P <.001),平均可检测性为 1.33 与 4.67(P <.001)。工作流程的平均总体 RPN 为 22.4,而近误事件的平均总体 RPN 为 108.4(P =.07),平均 NMRI 分别为 1.16 和 3.19。起源于治疗输送且被检测到的事件具有最高的平均总体 RPN(分别为 38.2 和 32.1)和 NMRI 评分(分别为 1.62 和 1.6)。
我们的经验表明,工作流程事件报告比近误事件更为常见,而近误事件更有可能在后期治疗阶段起源和被发现。工作流程报告的频率突出表明,安全和运营团队必须共同努力,最大限度地提高 ILS 的效益。我们建议 RPN 系统可能有助于指导未来近误事件的缓解策略。