Clinical implementation and failure mode and effects analysis of HDR skin brachytherapy using Valencia and Leipzig surface applicators.

PURPOSE The planning procedure for Valencia and Leipzig surface applicators (VLSAs) (Nucletron, Veenendaal, The Netherlands) differs substantially from CT-based planning; the unfamiliarity could lead to significant errors. This study applies failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) to high-dose-rate (HDR) skin brachytherapy using VLSAs to ensure safety and quality. METHOD A multidisciplinary team created a protocol for HDR VLSA skin treatments and applied FMEA. Failure modes were identified and scored by severity, occurrence, and detectability. The clinical procedure was then revised to address high-scoring process nodes. RESULTS Several key components were added to the protocol to minimize risk probability numbers. (1) Diagnosis, prescription, applicator selection, and setup are reviewed at weekly quality assurance rounds. Peer review reduces the likelihood of an inappropriate treatment regime. (2) A template for HDR skin treatments was established in the clinic's electronic medical record system to standardize treatment instructions. This reduces the chances of miscommunication between the physician and planner as well as increases the detectability of an error. (3) A screen check was implemented during the second check to increase detectability of an error. (4) To reduce error probability, the treatment plan worksheet was designed to display plan parameters in a format visually similar to the treatment console display, facilitating data entry and verification. (5) VLSAs are color coded and labeled to match the electronic medical record prescriptions, simplifying in-room selection and verification. CONCLUSIONS Multidisciplinary planning and FMEA increased detectability and reduced error probability during VLSA HDR brachytherapy. This clinical model may be useful to institutions implementing similar procedures.

[1]  P. Pronovost,et al.  Clinical review: Checklists - translating evidence into practice , 2009, Critical care.

[2]  Benedick A Fraass,et al.  A method for evaluating quality assurance needs in radiation therapy. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  J F Williamson,et al.  Code of practice for brachytherapy physics: report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 56. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. , 1997, Medical physics.

[4]  D. Copplestone,et al.  Environmental Protection: Transfer Parameters for Reference Animals and Plants , 2009 .

[5]  J. Williamson,et al.  High dose-rate brachytherapy treatment delivery: report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 59. , 1998, Medical physics.

[6]  John Whittington,et al.  SBAR: a shared mental model for improving communication between clinicians. , 2006, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[7]  T. Pawlicki,et al.  Enhancing the role of case-oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: Executive summary , 2013, Practical radiation oncology.

[8]  F. Ballester,et al.  An approach to using conventional brachytherapy software for clinical treatment planning of complex, Monte Carlo-based brachytherapy dose distributions. , 2009, Medical physics.

[9]  C. H. Clement,et al.  Preventing Accidental Exposures from New External Beam Radiation Therapy Technologies , 2009 .

[10]  Charles Shang,et al.  Complete response of endemic Kaposi sarcoma lesions with high-dose-rate brachytherapy: treatment method, results, and toxicity using skin surface applicators. , 2013, Brachytherapy.

[11]  J C Rosenwald,et al.  ICRP publication 112. A report of preventing accidental exposures from new external beam radiation therapy technologies. , 2009, Annals of the ICRP.

[12]  Matthew D Kolar,et al.  Failure modes and effects analysis applied to high-dose-rate brachytherapy treatment planning. , 2013, Brachytherapy.

[13]  F. Ballester,et al.  Limitations of the TG-43 formalism for skin high-dose-rate brachytherapy dose calculations. , 2014, Medical physics.

[14]  Sha X. Chang,et al.  Improving quality of patient care by improving daily practice in radiation oncology. , 2012, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[15]  L. Arribas,et al.  Treatment of facial cutaneous carcinoma with high-dose rate contact brachytherapy with customized molds. , 2011, Brachytherapy.

[16]  Facundo Ballester,et al.  A dosimetric study of Leipzig applicators. , 2005, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  P. Pronovost,et al.  An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  L. Anderson,et al.  Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: Recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43 , 1995 .

[19]  Eric C Ford,et al.  Evaluation of safety in a radiation oncology setting using failure mode and effects analysis. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  R. Bard,et al.  Ultrasound in dermatology: principles and applications. , 2012, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[21]  A. Dancey,et al.  A review of diagnostic imaging in melanoma. , 2008, Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS.