Skip to main content
Log in

Best practices for safety improvement through high-volume institutional incident learning: lessons learned from 2 years

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Radiation Oncology

Abstract

Objective

Incident learning systems (ILSs) are a key component of improving patient safety in radiation oncology, but the practicalities of ILS implementation can present major challenges. We describe the implementation and best practices derived from 2 years of experience with institutional incident learning, with details on root cause analysis (RCA), a list of key process improvements, and operational aspects of ILS use.

Methods and materials

The structure of the ILS is consistent with recommendations from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). Workflow is analyzed for incident reports from initial reporting to analysis and feedback to the reporter, including staffing required. A system for incident categorization is shown, as well as sample events selected for root cause analysis, and suggestions for providing feedback to users of ILS.

Results

In the first 2 years of the ILS implementation from 2012 to 2014, 1897 near-miss incidents were reported. There is widespread participation in the ILS program across all professional groups inside the department, with at least 75 % of clinical staff having filed at least one report. Total workload for the ILS program is estimated to be approximately one full-time employee, shared by approximately eight team members. Fifteen events were selected for RCA during this period. Eighteen major process improvement projects are described, ranging from issues related to process standardization, automation, staffing, new organization structures, and equipment purchase.

Conclusions

A unique high reporting volume institutional ILS has successfully resulted in numerous improvements in process, safety, and quality. Details for implementation and best practices for incident learning have been presented to allow adaptation in other practices.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Flanagan JC (1954) Psychol Bull 51(4):327–358

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. L. Z. Kaestli, L. Cingria, C. Fonzo-Christe and P. Bonnabry (2014) Int J Clin Pharm

  3. Panesar SS, Carson-Stevens A, Salvilla SA, Patel B, Mirza SB, Mann B (2013) Drug Healthcare Patient Saf 5:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ferroli P, Caldiroli D, Acerbi F, Scholtze M, Piro A, Schiariti M, Orena EF, Castiglione M, Broggi M, Perin A, DiMeco F (2012) Neurosurg Focus 33(5):E7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cassidy CJ, Smith A, Arnot-Smith J (2011) Anaesthesia 66(10):879–888

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. A. L. Zietman, J. R. Palta and M. L. Steinberg (2012) (American Society for Radiation Oncology, Fairfax, VA)

  7. ASTRO, (https://www.astro.org/Practice-Management/Practice-Accreditation/Standards/Index.aspx, 2014)

  8. Mutic S, Brame RS, Oddiraju S, Parikh P, Westfall MA, Hopkins ML, Medina AD, Danieley JC, Michalski JM, El Naqa IM, Low DA, Wu B (2010) Med Phys 37(9):5027–5036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Clark BG, Brown RJ, Ploquin J, Dunscombe P (2013) Pract Radiat Oncol 3(3):157–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kapur A, Goode G, Riehl C, Zuvic P, Joseph S, Adair N, Interrante M, Bloom B, Lee L, Sharma R, Sharma A, Antone J, Riegel A, Vijeh L, Zhang H, Cao Y, Morgenstern C, Montchal E, Cox B, Potters L (2013) Front Oncol 3:305

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Terezakis SA, Harris KM, Ford E, Michalski J, DeWeese T, Santanam L, Mutic S, Gay H (2013) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85(4):919–923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cunningham J, Coffey M, Knoos T, Holmberg O (2010) Radiother Oncol: J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 97(3):601–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Arnold A, Delaney GP, Cassapi L, Barton M (2010) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78(5):1548–1554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Huang G, Medlam G, Lee J, Billingsley S, Bissonnette JP, Ringash J, Kane G, Hodgson DC (2005) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61(5):1590–1595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yang R, Wang J, Zhang X, Sun H, Gao Y, Liu L, Lin L (2014) BioMed Res Int 2014:392596

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ford EC, Fong de Los Santos L, Pawlicki T, Sutlief S, Dunscombe P (2012) Med Phys 39(12):7272–7290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. in https://www.astro.org/clinical-practice/patient-safety/safety-book/safety-is-no-accident.aspx , edited by S. b. ASTRO (2012)

  18. Nyflot MJ, Zeng J, Kusano AS, Novak A, Mullen TD, Gao W, Jordan L, Sponseller PA, Carlson JC, Kane G, Ford EC (2015) Pract Radiat Oncol 5(5):e409–e416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vincent C (2003) N Engl J Med 348(11):1051–1056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Reason J (2000) BMJ 320(7237):768–770

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. S. Dekker (2006) The field guide to understanding human error. (Ashgate Publishing Company)

  22. S. Dekker (2012) Just culture: balancing safety and accountability. (Ashgate Publishing Company)

  23. Kusano AS, Nyflot MJ, Zeng J, Sponseller PA, Ermoian R, Jordan L, Carlson J, Novak A, Kane G, Ford EC (2015) Pract Radiat Oncol 5(3):e229–e237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jing Zeng.

Ethics declarations

The results reported here were collected and analyzed under approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Conflict of interest

Jing Zeng, Matthew J Nyflot, Loucille E Jordan, Patricia A Sponseller, Avrey Novak, Joshua Carlson, Ralph P Ermoian, Gabrielle M Kane, and Eric C Ford declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Funding

No funding support is associated with this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zeng, J., Nyflot, M.J., Jordan, L.E. et al. Best practices for safety improvement through high-volume institutional incident learning: lessons learned from 2 years. J Radiat Oncol 5, 323–333 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13566-016-0250-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13566-016-0250-y

Keywords

Navigation