Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas.
Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2022 Jul-Aug;12(4):e344-e353. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2022.01.003. Epub 2022 Mar 16.
In this study, we applied the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) approach to an automated radiation therapy contouring and treatment planning tool to assess, and subsequently limit, the risk of deploying automated tools.
Using an FMEA, we quantified the risks associated with the Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA), an automated contouring and treatment planning tool currently under development. A multidisciplinary team identified and scored each failure mode, using a combination of RPA plan data and experience for guidance. A 1-to-10 scale for severity, occurrence, and detectability of potential errors was used, following American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 100 recommendations. High-risk failure modes were further explored to determine how the workflow could be improved to reduce the associated risk.
Of 290 possible failure modes, we identified 126 errors that were unique to the RPA workflow, with a mean risk priority number (RPN) of 56.3 and a maximum RPN of 486. The top 10 failure modes were caused by automation bias, operator error, and software error. Twenty-one failure modes were above the action threshold of RPN = 125, leading to corrective actions. The workflow was modified to simplify the user interface and better training resources were developed, which highlight the importance of thorough review of the output of automated systems. After the changes, we rescored the high-risk errors, resulting in a final mean and maximum RPN of 33.7 and 288, respectively.
We identified 126 errors specific to the automated workflow, most of which were caused by automation bias or operator error, which emphasized the need to simplify the user interface and ensure adequate user training. As a result of changes made to the software and the enhancement of training resources, the RPNs subsequently decreased, showing that FMEA is an effective way to assess and reduce risk associated with the deployment of automated planning tools.
在这项研究中,我们将失效模式与效应分析(FMEA)方法应用于一种自动化放射治疗勾画和治疗计划工具,以评估并随后限制自动化工具的部署风险。
使用 FMEA,我们量化了与正在开发中的自动化勾画和治疗计划工具 Radiation Planning Assistant(RPA)相关的风险。一个多学科团队使用 RPA 计划数据和经验指导,对每个失效模式进行了识别和评分。我们使用了一种 1 到 10 的严重程度、发生频率和潜在错误可检测性的评分标准,这是根据美国医学物理学家协会任务组 100 的建议得出的。对高风险失效模式进行了进一步探讨,以确定如何改进工作流程以降低相关风险。
在 290 种可能的失效模式中,我们确定了 126 种 RPA 工作流程特有的错误,平均风险优先数(RPN)为 56.3,最大 RPN 为 486。排名前 10 的失效模式是由自动化偏差、操作员错误和软件错误引起的。有 21 种失效模式的 RPN 值超过了 125 的行动阈值,需要采取纠正措施。我们修改了工作流程以简化用户界面,并开发了更好的培训资源,这凸显了对自动化系统输出进行彻底审查的重要性。更改后,我们重新对高风险错误进行评分,最终平均和最大 RPN 分别为 33.7 和 288。
我们确定了 126 种特定于自动化工作流程的错误,其中大多数是由自动化偏差或操作员错误引起的,这强调了需要简化用户界面并确保用户有足够的培训。由于对软件进行了更改并增强了培训资源,RPN 值随后降低,表明 FMEA 是评估和降低与自动化计划工具部署相关风险的有效方法。