Implementing a new scale for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) for risk analysis in a radiation oncology department

Baehr, Andrea; Oertel, Michael; Kröger, Kai; Eich, Hans Theodor; Haverkamp, Uwe

doi:10.1007/s00066-020-01686-w

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The authors reported on national RM requirements in 10 countries, yet in Germany, the implementation of national regularities for RM in RO took until 2018. As only few scientific papers on approaches of RM in Germany exist [4,18,34], our results present a considerable support for enhanced communication about the topic, for the definition of guidelines and teaching content as well as a base for future research.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Risk management patterns in radiation oncology—results of a national survey within the framework of the Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) project

Baehr

Hummel²,

Gauer

et al. 2022

Strahlenther Onkol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Risk management (RM) is a key component of patient safety in radiation oncology (RO). We investigated current approaches on RM in German RO within the framework of the Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) project. Aim was not only to evaluate a status quo of RM purposes but furthermore to discover challenges for sustainable RM that should be addressed in future research and recommendations. Methods An online survey was conducted from June to August 2021, consisting of 18 items on prospective and reactive RM, protagonists of RM, and self-assessment concerning RM. The survey was designed using LimeSurvey and invitations were sent by e‑mail. Answers were requested once per institution. Results In all, 48 completed questionnaires from university hospitals, general and non-academic hospitals, and private practices were received and considered for evaluation. Prospective and reactive RM was commonly conducted within interprofessional teams; 88% of all institutions performed prospective risk analyses. Most institutions (71%) reported incidents or near-events using multiple reporting systems. Results were presented to the team in 71% for prospective analyses and 85% for analyses of incidents. Risk conferences take place in 46% of institutions. 42% nominated a manager/committee for RM. Knowledge concerning RM was mostly rated “satisfying” (44%). However, 65% of all institutions require more information about RM by professional societies. Conclusion Our results revealed heterogeneous patterns of RM in RO departments, although most departments adhered to common recommendations. Identified mismatches between recommendations and implementation of RM provide baseline data for future research and support definition of teaching content.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Risk management patterns in radiation oncology—results of a national survey within the framework of the Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) project

Baehr

Hummel²,

Gauer

et al. 2022

Strahlenther Onkol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It then took around four weeks for everybody to familiarize themselves with risk analysis with reference to quantification of severity and occurrence scales. Part of the familiarization were literature studies [12] , [14] , [15] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] and participation of dedicated meetings e.g., of the professional societies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The disadvantage is that due to the many intermediate levels in the subdivision, it can take a long time in the discussion of the risks until all participants have agreed on a value. A recent publication describes a risk scale that is specifically adapted to risk analysis in radiation oncology using questionnaires [35] . The method we use, with a five-stage scale and only two dimensions by integrating detectability into occurrence, has the advantage that risks can be classified quickly, and all risks are displayable in a risk matrix.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk analysis for radiotherapy at the Universitätsklinikum Erlangen

Lohmann

Lang-Welzenbach

Feldberger³

et al. 2022

Zeitschrift für Medizinische Physik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In Table 1 , the evaluation value of risk factor evaluation index of failure mode by evaluation experts is expressed by five hierarchical language variables [ 31 ], namely v = [very high (VH), high (H), medium (M), low (L), very low (R)] = [(8.5, 10, 10), (6, 7.5, 9), (2.5, 4.5, 6.5), (0, 1.5, 3) (0, 0, 1)]. If the evaluation expert considers that a failure mode does not conform to a risk factor evaluation index, the evaluation is “very low”, that is, the corresponding triangular fuzzy number can be denoted as v = (0, 0, 1); If the evaluation expert thinks that a failure mode fully conforms to the evaluation index of a risk factor, the evaluation is “very high”, that is, the triangular fuzzy number can be denoted as v = (8.5, 10, 10).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Service design touch point failure model and effect analysis based on the triangular fuzzy number evaluation method

Wang

Song

Chen

et al. 2022

Int J Interact Des Manuf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How to improve employees' satisfaction in the remote office mode while working together has become a challenge for enterprises to deal with the new office management mode. The concept of service design touch point is introduced into the remote office management system to improve employees' office experience and help enterprises complete the remote office service design. From the perspective of virtuous circle, the cost of failure analysis and preventive measures for service design touch point in the process of service design is lower than that of dealing with failure after service failure. Therefore, this paper made a risk assessment on the failure mode of service design touch point loss analysis method based on the triangular fuzzy number evaluation method. In the failure risk assessment, the fuzzy failure mode and effect analysis theory and the failure mode of service design touch point are analyzed first, and the expert scoring method is used to evaluate and determine the fuzzy level of severity, occurrence and detection of each failure mode; Then, aiming at the ability difference of different experts in evaluating different objects, the expert importance matrix, which is based on attribute difference, is determined; On this basis, the risk priority value of each failure mode is analyzed and determined by fuzzy calculation method. The risk evaluation ranking results of touch point failure modes are obtained according to the risk priority value. Finally, taking the failure analysis of Y company's remote collaborative office service as an example, the feasibility of the method is verified by the case of protection during COVID-19.

show abstract

Implementing a new scale for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) for risk analysis in a radiation oncology department

Cited by 9 publications

References 19 publications

Risk management patterns in radiation oncology—results of a national survey within the framework of the Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) project

Risk management patterns in radiation oncology—results of a national survey within the framework of the Patient Safety in German Radiation Oncology (PaSaGeRO) project

Risk analysis for radiotherapy at the Universitätsklinikum Erlangen

Service design touch point failure model and effect analysis based on the triangular fuzzy number evaluation method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About