Skip to main content

Safety Considerations in Radiation Therapy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 709 Accesses

Abstract

Approximately half of all cancer patients are treated with radiation therapy at some point in the management of their disease. These treatments are delivered in one of the most complex disciplines in healthcare, with the complexity and technology growing each year. In spite of this complexity a vast majority of treatments are delivered in a safe and effective manner. However, as recent data from cooperative group trials indicates there is a quality gap in the delivery of care. This underscores the need to improve care. Numerous healthcare-IT-related issues are at work in this context and two case studies serve to illustrate important causal factors. In the first case, a patient received a lethal overdose of radiation (seven times the prescribed amount) due to a single point of failure, i.e., a computer crash during the stage of preparing for the treatment. In the second case there was an accidental misalignment of the radiation field to treat the wrong location in a patient due to the misidentification of a landmark point in the computer planning interface. Though many complex factors were at work in these error scenarios, a common theme is a deficiency in the human–computer interface (HCI). HCI-related shortcoming can guide the user toward error rather than away from it. Poor HCI can also prevent staff from identifying problems as they develop. Pioneering efforts are underway to improve HCI system to help prevent errors. Efforts are also being aimed at developing new algorithms which automatically detect abnormalities in the IT systems as they develop. The newly released national incident learning system, RO-ILS™: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System, should provide valuable information in the coming years as to common error pathways, contribution of IT systems, and methods to prevent and control error.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Alhassani A, Chandra A, Chernew ME. The sources of the SGR “hole”. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(4):289–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ford EC, Fong de Los Santos L, Pawlicki T, Sutlief S, Dunscombe P. Consensus recommendations for incident learning database structures in radiation oncology. Med Phys. 2012;39(12):7272–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ford EC, Terezakis S. How safe is safe? Risk in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78(2):321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Marks LB, Light KL, Hubbs JL, Georgas DL, Jones EL, Wright MC, et al. The impact of advanced technologies on treatment deviations in radiation treatment delivery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69(5):1579–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gaba DM. Anaesthesiology as a model for patient safety in health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):785–8. Clinical research ed.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Peters LJ, O’Sullivan B, Giralt J, Fitzgerald TJ, Trotti A, Bernier J, et al. Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer: results from TROG 02.02. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(18):2996–3001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ohri N, Shen XL, Dicker AP, Doyle LA, Harrison AS, Showalter TN. Radiotherapy protocol deviations and clinical outcomes: a meta-analysis of cooperative group clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(6):387–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bogdanich W. A Lifesaving Tool Turned Deadly. Radiation offers new cures, and ways to do harm. New York Times. 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html?_r=0

  9. International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA training materials: module 2, prevention of accidental exposure in radiotherapy, Vienna. 2009. https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/AdditionalResources/Training/1_TrainingMaterial/AccidentPreventionRadiotherapy.htm. Accessed 23 Dec 2014.

  10. Thomadsen B, Lin SW, Laemmrich P, Waller T, Cheng A, Caldwell B, et al. Analysis of treatment delivery errors in brachytherapy using formal risk analysis techniques. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57(5):1492–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dekker S. The field guide to understanding human error. Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate; 2006. p. xv, 236 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Norman DA. The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hendee WR, Herman MG. Improving patient safety in radiation oncology. Med Phys. 2011;38(1):78–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chan AJ, Islam MK, Rosewall T, Jaffray DA, Easty AC, Cafazzo JA. The use of human factors methods to identify and mitigate safety issues in radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2010;97(3):596–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Terezakis SA, Harris KM, Ford E, Michalski J, DeWeese T, Santanam L, et al. An evaluation of departmental radiation oncology incident reports: anticipating a national reporting system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(4):919–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ford EC, Terezakis S, Souranis A, Harris K, Gay H, Mutic S. Quality control quantification (QCQ): a tool to measure the value of quality control checks in radiation oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84(3):e263–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yang D, Moore KL. Automated radiotherapy treatment plan integrity verification. Med Phys. 2012;39(3):1542–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Furhang EE, Dolan J, Sillanpaa JK, Harrison LB. Automating the initial physics chart-checking process. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2009;10(1):129–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Siochi RA, Pennington EC, Waldron TJ, Bayouth JE. Radiation therapy plan checks in a paperless clinic. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2009;10(1):43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mans A, Wendling M, McDermott LN, Sonke JJ, Tielenburg R, Vijlbrief R, et al. Catching errors with in vivo EPID dosimetry. Med Phys. 2010;37(6):2638–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric C. Ford Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ford, E.C., Herman, M.G. (2016). Safety Considerations in Radiation Therapy. In: Agrawal, A. (eds) Safety of Health IT. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31123-4_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31123-4_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31121-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31123-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics