Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, USA.
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022 Jun;23(6):e13640. doi: 10.1002/acm2.13640. Epub 2022 May 10.
Plan checks are important components of a robust quality assurance (QA) program. Recently, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) published two reports concerning plan and chart checking, Task Group (TG) 275 and Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) 11.A. The purpose of the current study was to crosswalk initial plan check failure modes revealed in TG 275 against our institutional QA program and local incident reporting data. Ten physicists reviewed 46 high-risk failure modes reported in Table S1.A.i of the TG 275 report. The committee identified steps in our planning process which sufficiently checked each failure mode. Failure modes that were not covered were noted for follow-up. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed the narratives of 1599 locally-reported incidents in our Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (ROILS) database and categorized each into the high-risk TG 275 failure modes. We found that over half of the 46 high-risk failure modes, six of which were top-ten failure modes, were covered in part by daily contouring peer-review rounds, upstream of the traditional initial plan check. Five failure modes were not adequately covered, three of which concerned pregnancy, pacemakers, and prior dose. Of the 1599 incidents analyzed, 710 were germane to the initial plan check, 23.4% of which concerned missing pregnancy attestations. Most, however, were caught prior to CT simulation (98.8%). Physics review and initial plan check were the least efficacious checks, with error detection rates of 31.8% and 31.3%, respectively, for some failure modes. Our QA process that includes daily contouring rounds resulted in increased upstream error detection. This work has led to several initiatives in the department, including increased automation and enhancement of several policies and procedures. With TG 275 and MPPG 11.A as a guide, we strongly recommend that departments consider an internal chart checking policy and procedure review.
计划检查是健全的质量保证(QA)计划的重要组成部分。最近,美国医学物理学家协会(AAPM)发布了两份关于计划和图表检查的报告,分别是 TG 275 和医学物理实践指南(MPPG)11.A。本研究的目的是将 TG 275 中揭示的初始计划检查故障模式与我们的机构 QA 计划和本地事件报告数据进行交叉核对。十位物理学家审查了 TG 275 报告表 S1.A.i 中报告的 46 个高风险故障模式。委员会确定了我们计划过程中的步骤,这些步骤足以检查每个故障模式。未涵盖的故障模式将被记录下来以备后续跟进。一个多学科委员会审查了我们放射肿瘤学事件学习系统(ROILS)数据库中 1599 例本地报告事件的叙述,并将每个事件归入 TG 275 的高风险故障模式。我们发现,超过一半的 46 个高风险故障模式,其中六个是十大故障模式,在传统的初始计划检查之前的每日轮廓审查轮次中得到了部分覆盖。有五个故障模式没有得到充分覆盖,其中三个涉及怀孕、起搏器和先前的剂量。在所分析的 1599 例事件中,有 710 例与初始计划检查有关,其中 23.4%涉及缺失妊娠证明。然而,大多数是在 CT 模拟之前发现的(98.8%)。物理审查和初始计划检查是最有效的检查,对于某些故障模式,错误检测率分别为 31.8%和 31.3%。我们的 QA 流程包括每日轮廓检查,导致上游错误检测率增加。这项工作导致了部门内的几项举措,包括增加自动化和增强了几项政策和程序。在 TG 275 和 MPPG 11.A 的指导下,我们强烈建议各部门考虑内部图表检查政策和程序审查。