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
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Alhassani A, Chandra A, Chernew ME. The sources of the SGR “hole”. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(4):289–91.
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.
Ford EC, Terezakis S. How safe is safe? Risk in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78(2):321.
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.
Gaba DM. Anaesthesiology as a model for patient safety in health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):785–8. Clinical research ed.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Dekker S. The field guide to understanding human error. Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate; 2006. p. xv, 236 pp.
Norman DA. The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books; 1988.
Hendee WR, Herman MG. Improving patient safety in radiation oncology. Med Phys. 2011;38(1):78–82.
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.
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.
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.
Yang D, Moore KL. Automated radiotherapy treatment plan integrity verification. Med Phys. 2012;39(3):1542–51.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)