Quantitative assessment of workload and stressors in clinical radiation oncology.

PURPOSE: Workload level and sources of stressors have been implicated as sources of error in multiple settings. We assessed workload levels and sources of stressors among radiation oncology professionals. Furthermore, we explored the potential association between workload and the frequency of reported radiotherapy incidents by the World Health Organization (WHO). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data collection was aimed at various tasks performed by 21 study participants from different radiation oncology professional subgroups (simulation therapists, radiation therapists, physicists, dosimetrists, and physicians). Workload was assessed using National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task-Load Index (NASA TLX). Sources of stressors were quantified using observational methods and segregated using a standard taxonomy. Comparisons between professional subgroups and tasks were made using analysis of variance ANOVA, multivariate ANOVA, and Duncan test. An association between workload levels (NASA TLX) and the frequency of radiotherapy incidents (WHO incidents) was explored (Pearson correlation test). RESULTS: A total of 173 workload assessments were obtained. Overall, simulation therapists had relatively low workloads (NASA TLX range, 30-36), and physicists had relatively high workloads (NASA TLX range, 51-63). NASA TLX scores for physicians, radiation therapists, and dosimetrists ranged from 40-52. There was marked intertask/professional subgroup variation (P<.0001). Mental demand (P<.001), physical demand (P=.001), and effort (P=.006) significantly differed among professional subgroups. Typically, there were 3-5 stressors per cycle of analyzed tasks with the following distribution: interruptions (41.4%), time factors (17%), technical factors (13.6%), teamwork issues (11.6%), patient factors (9.0%), and environmental factors (7.4%). A positive association between workload and frequency of reported radiotherapy incidents by the WHO was found (r = 0.87, P value=.045). CONCLUSIONS: Workload level and sources of stressors vary among professional subgroups. Understanding the factors that influence these findings can guide adjustments to the workflow procedures, physical layout, and/or communication protocols to enhance safety. Additional evaluations are needed in order to better understand if these findings are systemic.

The challenge of maximizing safety in radiation oncology.

There is a growing interest in the evolving nature of safety challenges in radiation oncology. Understandably, there has been a great deal of focus on the mechanical and computer aspects of new high-technology treatments (eg, intensity-modulated radiation therapy). However, safety concerns are not limited to dose calculations and data transfer associated with advanced technologies. They also stem from fundamental changes in our workflow (eg, multiple hand-offs), the relative loss of some traditional "end of the line" quality assurance tools (port films and light fields), condensed fractionation schedules, and an under-appreciation for the physical limitations of new techniques. Furthermore, changes in our workspace and tools (eg, electronic records, planning systems), and workloads (eg, billing, insurance, regulations) may have unforeseen effects on safety. Safety initiatives need to acknowledge the multiple factors affecting risk. Our current challenges will not be adequately addressed simply by defining new policies and procedures. Rather, we need to understand the frequency and causes of errors better, particularly those that are most likely to cause harm. Then we can incorporate principles into our workspace that minimize these risks (eg, automation, standardization, checklists, redundancy, and consideration of "human factors" in the design of products and workspaces). Opportunities to enhance safety involve providing support through diligent examinations of staffing, schedules, communications, teamwork, and work environments. We need to develop a culture of safety in which all team members are alerted to the possibility of harm, and they all work together to maximize safety. The goal is not to eliminate every error. Rather, we should focus our attention on conditions (eg, rushing) that can cause real patient harm, and/or those conditions that reflect systemic problems that might lead to errors more likely to cause harm. Ongoing changes in clinical practice mandate continued vigilance to minimize the risks of error, combined with new, nontraditional approaches to create a safer patient environment.