Validating FMEA output against incident learning data: A study in stereotactic body radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: Though failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is becoming more widely adopted for risk assessment in radiation therapy, to our knowledge, its output has never been validated against data on errors that actually occur. The objective of this study was to perform FMEA of a stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment planning process and validate the results against data recorded within an incident learning system. METHODS: FMEA on the SBRT treatment planning process was carried out by a multidisciplinary group including radiation oncologists, medical physicists, dosimetrists, and IT technologists. Potential failure modes were identified through a systematic review of the process map. Failure modes were rated for severity, occurrence, and detectability on a scale of one to ten and risk priority number (RPN) was computed. Failure modes were then compared with historical reports identified as relevant to SBRT planning within a departmental incident learning system that has been active for two and a half years. Differences between FMEA anticipated failure modes and existing incidents were identified. RESULTS: FMEA identified 63 failure modes. RPN values for the top 25% of failure modes ranged from 60 to 336. Analysis of the incident learning database identified 33 reported near-miss events related to SBRT planning. Combining both methods yielded a total of 76 possible process failures, of which 13 (17%) were missed by FMEA while 43 (57%) identified by FMEA only. When scored for RPN, the 13 events missed by FMEA ranked within the lower half of all failure modes and exhibited significantly lower severity relative to those identified by FMEA (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: FMEA, though valuable, is subject to certain limitations. In this study, FMEA failed to identify 17% of actual failure modes, though these were of lower risk. Similarly, an incident learning system alone fails to identify a large number of potentially high-severity process errors. Using FMEA in combination with incident learning may render an improved overview of risks within a process.

Radiation safety parameters following prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To determine the degree and variability of radiation exposure to the general public from patients after I-125 or Pd-103 prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation exposure measurements were made from 38 consecutive, unselected patients with stage T1 or T2 prostatic carcinoma who had transperineal I-125 or Pd-103 implants at the University of Washington in 1998. RESULTS: The exposure rate at the anterior skin surface following a I-125 implant ranged from 2.2 to 8.9 mrem/hour (average: 5.0). The exposure rate at the anterior skin surface from a Pd-103 implant ranged from 0.5 to 4.9 mrem/hour (average: 1.7). Based on the current Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations the time required to reach the annual limit at the anterior skin surface would be 20 hours for I-125 and 59 hours for Pd-103. For exposure at the lateral skin surface, the times would exceed 500 hours for either isotope. CONCLUSIONS: This data suggest that patients need not be concerned about being a radiation risk to the general public following their procedure.

Local anesthesia for prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the technique and feasibility of prostate brachytherapy performed with local anesthesia only. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 5 by 5 cm patch of perineal skin and subcutaneous tissue is anesthetized by local infiltration of 10 cc of 1% lidocaine with epinephrine, using a 25-gauge 5/8-inch needle. Immediately following injection into the subcutaneous tissues, the deeper tissues, including the pelvic floor and prostate apex, are anesthetized by injecting 15 cc lidocaine solution with approximately 8 passes of a 20-gauge 1.0-inch needle. Following subcutaneous and peri-apical lidocaine injections, the patient is brought to the simulator suite and placed in leg stirrups. The transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) probe is positioned to reproduce the planning images and a 3.5- or 6.0-inch, 22-gauge spinal needle is inserted into the peripheral planned needle tracks, monitored by TRUS. When the tips of the needles reach the prostatic base, about 1 cc of lidocaine solution is injected in the intraprostatic track, as the needle is slowly withdrawn, for a total volume of 15 cc. The implants are done with a Mick Applicator, inserting and loading groups of two to four needles, so that a maximum of only about four needles are in the patient at any one time. During the implant procedure, an additional 1 cc of lidocaine solution is injected into one or more needle tracks if the patient experiences substantial discomfort. The total dose of lidocaine is generally limited to 500 mg (50 ml of 1% solution). RESULTS: To date, we have implanted approximately 50 patients in our simulator suite, using local anesthesia. Patients' heart rate and diastolic blood pressure usually showed moderate changes, consistent with some discomfort. The time from first subcutaneous injection and completion of the source insertion ranged from 35 to 90 minutes. Serum lidocaine levels were below or at the low range of therapeutic. There has been only one instance of acute urinary retention in the patients treated so far, and no unplanned admissions to the hospital or need to reschedule a patient to be implanted under general or spinal anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The substitution of local anesthesia has facilitated rapid introduction of a high-volume brachytherapy program at an institution that previously had none, without requiring the allocation of significant operating room time. Although the patients reported here were implanted without conscious sedation, we are starting to try various sedatives and analgesics for patients who we anticipate will have substantial anxiety with the procedure.