A multi-institutional assessment of COVID-19-related risk in radiation oncology

Application of failure mode and effect analysis in ICU admission of potentially COVID-19 infected patients

BACKGROUND

To analyze the admission and treatment process of potentially COVID-19-infected patients in the intensive care unit under normalization, prevention, and control of the pandemic.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team was assembled to develop a flowchart of potentially COVID-19-infected patients admitted to the intensive care unit and identify potential failure steps and modes throughout the process using the failure mode and effect analysis method. Through risk priority number (RPN) analysis of each failure mode, those with the highest impact on nosocomial infection were identified, and the priority of implementation was determined. Related corrective measures have been developed to continuously improve clinical practice and management.

RESULTS

Eighty potential failure modes were identified, and 8 potential failure modes were identified with RPNs greater than 100. These high RPNs of the failure modes were associated with careless inquiries of epidemiological histories by nurses, inadequate implementation of management standards by nursing assistants, and exposure of attending physicians to potentially risky environments. Finally, 18 general corrective measures are proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the failure mode and effect analysis method for quality improvement is a powerful tool for predicting potential failures in the process and can suggest corrective measures that could help avoid nosocomial infection during a pandemic.

Multi-phase failure modes and effects analysis for low dose bilateral whole lung irradiation of COVID-19 positive patients requiring respiratory ventilation

PURPOSE

To identify high-priority risks in a clinical trial investigating the use of radiation to alleviate COVID-19 pneumonia using a multi-phase failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA).

METHODS

A comprehensive FMEA survey of 133 possible causes of failure was developed for the clinical trial workflow (Phase I). The occurrence, severity, and detection risk of each possible cause of failure was scored by three medical physicists. High-risk potential failure modes were identified using the risk priority number (RPN) and severity scores, which were re-scored by 13 participants in radiation oncology (Phase II). Phase II survey scores were evaluated to identify steps requiring possible intervention and examine risk perception patterns. The Phase II participants provided consensus scores as a group.

RESULTS

Thirty high-priority failure modes were selected for the Phase II survey. Strong internal consistency was shown in both surveys using Cronbach's alpha (αc ≥ 0.85). The 10 failures with the largest median RPN values concerned SARS-CoV-2 transmission (N = 6), wrong treatment (N = 3), and patient injury (N = 1). The median RPN was larger for COVID-related failures than other failure types, primarily due to the perceived difficulty of failure detection. Group re-scoring retained 8/10 of the highest-priority risk steps that were identified in the Phase II process, and discussion revealed interpretation differences of process steps and risk evaluation. Participants who were directly involved with the trial working group had stronger agreement on severity scores than those who were not.

CONCLUSIONS

The high ranking of failures concerning SARS-CoV-2 transmission suggest that these steps may require additional quality management intervention when treating critically ill COVID-19+ patients. The results also suggest that a multi-phase FMEA survey led by a facilitator may be a useful tool for assessing risks in radiation oncology procedures, supporting future efforts to adapt FMEA to clinical procedures.

A Minimum Cost Consensus-Based Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Framework Considering Experts' Limited Compromise and Tolerance Behaviors

This study proposes a minimum cost consensus-based failure mode and effect analysis (MCC-FMEA) framework considering experts' limited compromise and tolerance behaviors, where the first behavior indicates that a failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) expert might not tolerate modifying his/her risk assessment without limitations, and the second behavior indicates that an FMEA expert will accept risk assessment suggestions without being paid for any cost if the suggested risk assessments fall within his/her tolerance threshold. First, an MCC-FMEA with limited compromise behaviors is presented. Second, experts' tolerance behaviors are added to the MCC-FMEA with limited compromise behaviors. Theoretical results indicate that in some cases, this MCC-FMEA with limited compromise and tolerance behaviors has no solution. Thus, a minimum compromise adjustment consensus model and a maximum consensus model with limited compromise behaviors are developed and analyzed, and an interactive MCC-FMEA framework, resulting in an FMEA problem consensual collective solution, is designed. A case study, regarding the assessment of COVID-19-related risk in radiation oncology, and a detailed sensitivity and comparative analysis with the existing FMEA approaches are provided to verify the effectiveness of the proposed approach to FMEA consensus-reaching.

Good clinical practice and the use of hypofractionation radiation schedules as weapons to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infections in radiation oncology unit: A mono-institutional experience

BACKGROUND

After coronavirus disease outbreak emerged in 2019, radiotherapy departments had to adapt quickly their health system and establish new organizations and priorities. The purpose of this work is to report our experience in dealing with COVID-19 emergency, how we have reorganized our clinical activity, changed our priorities, and stressed the use of hypofractionation in the treatment of oncological diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The patients' circuit of first medical examinations and follow-up was reorganized; a more extensive use of hypofractionated schedules was applied; a daily triage of the patients and staff, use of personal protective equipment, hand washing, environment sanitization, social distancing and limitations for the patients' caregivers in the department, unless absolutely essential, were performed; patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were treated at the end of the day. In addition, the total number of radiotherapy treatment courses, patients and sessions, in the period from February 15 to April 30, 2020, comparing the same time period in 2018 were retrospectively investigated. In particular, changes in hypofractionated schedules adopted for the treatment of breast and prostate cancer and palliative bone metastasis were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between February 15, and April 30, 2020, an increased number of treatments was carried out: Patients treated were overall 299 compared to 284 of the same period of 2018. Stressing the use of hypofractionation, 2036 RT sessions were performed, with a mean number of fractions per course of 6.8, compared to 3566 and 12.6, respectively, in 2018. For breast cancer, the schedule in 18 fractions has been abandoned and treatment course of 13 fractions has been introduced; a 27% reduction in the use of 40.5 Gy in 15 fractions, (67 treatments in 2018-49 in 2020) was reported. An increase of 13% of stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer was showed. The use of the 20 Gy in 4 or 5 sessions for the treatment of symptomatic bone metastasis decreased of 17.5% in favor of 8 Gy-single fraction. Three patients results COVID-19 positive swab: 1 during, 2 after treatment. Only one staff member developed an asymptomatic infection.

CONCLUSIONS

The careful application of triage, anti-contagion and protective measures, a more extensive use of hypofractionation allowed us to maintain an effective and continuous RT service with no delayed/deferred treatment as evidenced by the very low number of patients developing COVID-19 infection during or in the short period after radiotherapy. Our experience has shown how the reorganization of the ward priority, the identification of risk factors with the relative containment measures can guarantee the care of oncological patients, who are potentially at greater risk of contracting the infection.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring using telemedicine: proof-of-concept cohort and failure modes and effects analyses

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated adoption of remote consulting in healthcare. Despite opportunities posed by telemedicine, most hypertension services in Europe have suspended ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM).

Methods: We examined the process and performance of remotely delivered ABPM using two methodologies: firstly, a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and secondly, a quantitative analysis comparing ABPM data from a subgroup of 65 participants of the Screening for Hypertension in the INpatient Environment (SHINE) diagnostic accuracy study. The FMEA was performed over seven sessions from February to March 2021, with a multidisciplinary team comprising a patient representative, a research coordinator with technical expertise and four research clinicians.

Results: The FMEA identified a single high-risk step in the remote ABPM process. This was cleaning of monitoring equipment in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, unrelated to the remote setting.

A total of 14 participants were scheduled for face-to-face ABPM appointments, before the UK March 2020 COVID-19 lockdown; 62 were scheduled for remote ABPM appointments since emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic between November 2020 and August 2021. A total of 65 (88%) participants completed ABPMs; all obtained sufficient successful measurements for interpretation. For the 10 participants who completed face-to-face ABPM, there were 402 attempted ABPM measurements and 361 (89%) were successful. For the 55 participants who completed remote ABPM, there were 2516 attempted measurements and 2214 (88%) were successful. There was no significant difference in the mean per-participant error rate between face-to-face (0.100, SD 0.009) and remote (0.143, SD 0.132) cohorts (95% CI for the difference -0.125 to 0.045 and two-tailed P-value 0.353).

Conclusions: We have demonstrated that ABPM can be safely and appropriately provided in the community remotely and without face-to-face contact, using video technology for remote fitting appointments, alongside courier services for delivery of equipment to participants.

Covid-19 and radiotherapy: a systematic review after 2 years of pandemic

Introduction

Following the Covid-19 pandemic spread, changes in clinical practice were necessary to limit the pandemic diffusion. Also, oncological practice has undergone changes with radiotherapy (RT) treatments playing a key role.Although several experiences have been published, the aim of this review is to summarize the current evidence after 2 years of pandemic to provide useful conclusions for clinicians.

Methods

A Pubmed/MEDLINE and Embase systematic review was conducted. The search strategy was "Covid AND Radiotherapy" and only original articles in the English language were considered.

Results

A total of 2.733 papers were obtained using the mentioned search strategy. After the complete selection process, a total of 281 papers were considered eligible for the analysis of the results.

Discussion

RT has played a key role in Covid-19 pandemic as it has proved more resilient than surgery and chemotherapy. The impact of the accelerated use of hypofractionated RT and telemedicine will make these strategies central also in the post-pandemic period.

The impact of COVID-19 on a high-volume incident learning system: A retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this work was to assess how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted our incident learning system data and communicate the impact of a major exogenous event on radiation oncology clinical practice.

METHODS

Trends in our electronic incident reporting system were analyzed to ascertain the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including any direct clinical changes. Incident reports submitted in the 18 months prior to the pandemic (September 14, 2018 to March 13, 2020) and reports submitted during the first 18 months of the pandemic (March 14, 2020 to September 13, 2021) were compared. The incident reports include several data elements that were evaluated for trends between the two time periods, and statistical analysis was performed to compare the proportions of reports.

RESULTS

In the 18 months prior to COVID-19, 192 reports were submitted per 1000 planning tasks (n = 832 total). In the first 18 months of the pandemic, 147 reports per 1000 planning tasks were submitted (n = 601 total), a decrease of 23.4%. Statistical analysis revealed that there were no significant changes among the data elements between the pre- and during COVID-19 time periods. An analysis of the free-text narratives in the reports found that phrases related to pretreatment imaging were common before COVID-19 but not during. Conversely, phrases related to intravenous contrast, consent for computed tomography, and adaptive radiotherapy became common during COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

The data elements captured by our incident learning system were stable after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with no statistically significant findings after correction for multiple comparisons. A trend toward fewer reports submitted for low-risk issues was observed. The methods used in the work can be generalized to events with a large-scale impact on the clinic or to monitor an incident learning system to drive future improvement activities.

Implementation of the failure modes and effects analysis in a Hospital Radiopharmacy Unit

AIM

The aim of this study is the implementation in a Hospital Radiopharmacy Unit of a risk analysis methodology in order to proactively identify possible failure modes and prioritize corrective measures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

By means of the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), the possible failure modes of each of the stages of the processes of prescription, preparation, and administration of radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic and therapy were identified. From the variables of severity, probability and detectability, the risk was quantified using the Risk Priority Number (RPN) for each failure mode, sub-process, and type of radiopharmaceutical. Improvement measures were established and the reduction in the RPN value was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 96 failure modes were identified (58 for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals and 38 for therapy). Biunivocal identification of the patient with the radiopharmaceutical is the failure mode with the highest RPN (60) and the radiolabeling cell sub-process the one that has the highest risk (RPN 286). As a result of the improvement measures, the overall RPN was reduced by 22% for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals and 20% for therapy. This reduction would be 46% and 31% respectively if radiopharmacy software and a barcode technology in the administration were implemented.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of the FMEA methodology as a risk analysis tool allows to identify the critical points of the processes related to radiopharmaceuticals and prioritize measures to reduce the risk.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring using telemedicine: proof-of-concept cohort and failure modes and effects analyses

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated adoption of remote consulting in healthcare. Despite opportunities posed by telemedicine, most hypertension services in Europe have suspended ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Methods: We examined the process and performance of remotely delivered ABPM using two methodologies: firstly, a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and secondly, a quantitative analysis comparing ABPM data from a subgroup of 65 participants of the Screening for Hypertension in the INpatient Environment (SHINE) diagnostic accuracy study. The FMEA was performed over seven sessions from February to March 2021, with a multidisciplinary team comprising a patient representative, a research coordinator with technical expertise and four research clinicians. Results: The FMEA identified a single high-risk step in the remote ABPM process. This was cleaning of monitoring equipment in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, unrelated to the remote setting. A total of 14 participants were scheduled for face-to-face ABPM appointments, before the UK March 2020 COVID-19 lockdown; 62 were scheduled for remote ABPM appointments since emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic between November 2020 and August 2021. A total of 65 (88%) participants completed ABPMs; all obtained sufficient successful measurements for interpretation. For the 10 participants who completed face-to-face ABPM, there were 402 attempted ABPM measurements and 361 (89%) were successful. For the 55 participants who completed remote ABPM, there were 2516 attempted measurements and 2214 (88%) were successful. There was no significant difference in the mean per-participant error rate between face-to-face (0.100, SD 0.009) and remote (0.143, SD 0.132) cohorts (95% CI for the difference -0.125 to 0.045 and two-tailed P-value 0.353). Conclusions: We have demonstrated that ABPM can be safely and appropriately provided in the community remotely and without face-to-face contact, using video technology for remote fitting appointments, alongside courier services for delivery of equipment to participants.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring using telemedicine: proof-of-concept cohort and failure modes and effects analyses

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated adoption of remote consulting in healthcare. Despite opportunities posed by telemedicine, most hypertension services in Europe have suspended ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Methods: We examined the process and performance of remotely delivered ABPM using two methodologies: firstly, a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and secondly, a quantitative analysis comparing ABPM data from a subgroup of 65 participants of the Screening for Hypertension in the INpatient Environment (SHINE) diagnostic accuracy study. The FMEA was performed over seven sessions from February to March 2021, with a multidisciplinary team comprising a patient representative, a research coordinator with technical expertise and four research clinicians. Results: The FMEA identified a single high-risk step in the remote ABPM process. This was cleaning of monitoring equipment in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, unrelated to the remote setting. A total of 14 participants were scheduled for face-to-face ABPM appointments, before the UK March 2020 COVID-19 lockdown; 62 were scheduled for remote ABPM appointments since emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic between November 2020 and August 2021. A total of 65 (88%) participants completed ABPMs; all obtained sufficient successful measurements for interpretation. For the 10 participants who completed face-to-face ABPM, there were 402 attempted ABPM measurements and 361 (89%) were successful. For the 55 participants who completed remote ABPM, there were 2516 attempted measurements and 2114 (88%) were successful. There was no significant difference in the mean per-participant error rate between face-to-face (0.100, SD 0.009) and remote (0.143, SD 0.132) cohorts (95% CI for the difference -0.125 to 0.045 and two-tailed P-value 0.353). Conclusions: We have demonstrated that ABPM can be safely and appropriately provided in the community remotely and without face-to-face contact, using video technology for remote fitting appointments, alongside courier services for delivery of equipment to participants.

Failure modes and effects analysis for surface-guided DIBH breast radiotherapy

Despite breast cancer prevalence and widespread adoption of deep inspiration breath‐hold (DIBH) radiation techniques, few data exist on the error risks related to using surface‐guided (SG) DIBH during breast radiation therapy (RT). Due to the increasingly technical nature of these methods and being a paradigm shift from traditional breast setups/treatments, the associated risk for error is high. Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) has been used in identifying risky RT processes yet is time‐consuming to perform. A subset of RT staff and a hospital patient‐safety representative performed FMEA to study SG‐DIBH RT processes. After this group (cohort 1) analyzed these processes, additional scoring data were acquired from RT staff uninvolved in the original FMEA (cohort 2). Cohort 2 received abbreviated FMEA training while using the same process maps that cohort 1 had created, which was done with the goal of validating our results and exploring the feasibility of expedited FMEA training and efficient implementation elsewhere. An extensive review of the SG‐DIBH RT process revealed 57 failure modes in 16 distinct steps. Risks deemed to have the highest priority, large risk priority number (RPN), and severity were addressed with policy changes, checklists, and standardization; of these, most were linked with operator error via manual inputs and verification. Reproducibility results showed that 5% of the average RPN between cohorts 1 and 2 was statistically different. Unexpected associations were noted between RPN and RT staff role; 12% of the physicist and therapist average scores were statistically different. Different levels of FMEA training yielded similar scoring within one RT department, suggesting a time‐savings can be achieved with abbreviated training. Scores between professions, however, yielded significant differences suggesting the importance of involving staff across disciplines.

Professional practice changes in radiotherapy physics during the COVID-19 pandemic

•

The experience of 433 medical physicists during COVID-19 was analysed.

•

Changes in clinical practice had an impact on treatment planning and quality assurance tasks.

•

The effects of the changes were perceived differently by management vs clinical medical physicists.

•

There is a clear willingness to learn from this experience.

Background and purpose

The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed changes in radiotherapy (RT) departments worldwide. Medical physicists (MPs) are key healthcare professionals in maintaining safe and effective RT. This study reports on MPs experience during the first pandemic peak and explores the consequences on their work.

Methods

A 39-question survey on changes in departmental and clinical practice and on the impact for the future was sent to the global MP community. A total of 433 responses were analysed by professional role and by country clustered on the daily infection numbers.

Results

The impact of COVID-19 was bigger in countries with high daily infection rate. The majority of MPs worked in alternation at home/on-site. Among practice changes, implementation and/or increased use of hypofractionation was the most common (47% of the respondents). Sixteen percent of respondents modified patient-specific quality assurance (QA), 21% reduced machine QA, and 25% moved machine QA to weekends/evenings. The perception of trust in leadership and team unity was reversed between management MPs (towards increased trust and unity) and clinical MPs (towards a decrease). Changes such as home-working and increased use of hypofractionation were welcomed. However, some MPs were concerned about pressure to keep negative changes (e.g. weekend work).

Conclusion

COVID-19 affected MPs through changes in practice and QA procedures but also in terms of trust in leadership and team unity. Some changes were welcomed but others caused worries for the future. This report forms the basis, from a medical physics perspective, to evaluate long-lasting changes within a multi-disciplinary setting.