Error rates in radiation therapy: results of a quality assurance review

Huang, G; Hodgson, David C.; Medlam, Gaylene; Lockwood, Gina

doi:10.1016/s0360-3016(02)03587-3

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it requires continuous effort and innovation to uphold and A reporting rate of 1.7% of all patients in radiotherapy was comparative to published data, ranging between 1.7% and 4.6% per patient. 1,5,6,7,8 From the statistics of all the patients treated in ICON, 0.04% were reported to have had an associated incident that has led to some form of clinical consequence, while considering that with any reporting system, the reporting can be misrepresented by inaccurate data because of under-reporting, which may be present.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality management in radiotherapy: A 9-year review of incident reporting within a multifacility organisation

Oelofse¹,

Staden²,

Coetzee³

et al. 2021

South African Journal of Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A radiotherapy incident reporting system should (1) record and classify incidents, (2) assess the impact of incidents on patients in terms of dose errors and (3) identify areas of improvement in the incident reporting system. Such a system at the Independent Clinical Oncology Network (ICON) Oncology is investigated.Aim: An ‘incident’ is defined by ICON as ‘any occurrence that may prevent the patient from receiving the prescribed dose in the prescribed time period or may cause unplanned harm to the patient or may infringe upon the patient’s rights’.Setting: Incidents reported between December 2011 and December 2020.Methods: Incidents were analysed looking at various factors such as institutional timelines compared with major projects, incident error and areas, reporting frequencies amongst tumour-sites and professional groups.Results: Over the course of 9-years, 78 521 patients were treated at ICON’s centres and a total of 924 reports were filed involving 1355 patients. This shows an incident rate of 1.7% of all patients in radiotherapy. The difference in incident number versus patients is because one incident may involve many patients. Reporting amongst professional groups has more distinctive differences, with 86.0%, 11.6% and 2.4% reported cases per annum for radiotherapists, physicist and oncologist, respectively. For the errors in dose-delivery, 43.0% of the incidents were discovered with no dosimetric or clinical consequence, 53.6% with dosimetric consequence but no clinical consequence and 3.4% with dosimetric and clinical consequence.Conclusion: Incident reporting is not a new quality assurance (QA) indicator for radiotherapy treatment. However, it requires continuous effort and innovation to uphold and maintain a high standard of patient and staff safety within an organisation. Errors are present during every stage of the radiotherapy process, whether it be human, technical, organisational or patient related. From the statistics of all the patients treated at ICON, 0.04% have been reported to have had an associated incident that involved some form of clinical consequence. Yet, if undetected, the incident could lead to increase in dose errors to patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This has been shown to promote incident reporting in institutions. 1,5,6,7,8 All incident findings with procedural changes in either workflow of standard operating procedures (SOPs) was made or added. This happened either with immediate effect or at annual reviews of SOPs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%