Basic Original ReportHazards and incidents: Detection and learning in radiation medicine, a comparison of 2 educational interventions
Introduction
Despite high quality standards, incidents still occur in modern radiation medicine programs and have the potential to harm patients.1 An “incident” may be defined as “an unwanted or unexpected change from a normal system behavior which causes or has the potential to cause an adverse effect on persons or equipment.”2 Hazards, or risks, may increase the likelihood of an incident. Reported rates of radiation therapy incidents range between 0.2% and 2% per course; fortunately, the vast majority of incidents have either no or minimal clinical impact.[3], [4] However, these incident rates are higher than those in anesthesia, transfusion medicine, or the airline industry.[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] Published trend analyses report that common causes of radiation therapy incidents include poor communication and errors in transmission of essential information[11], [12], [13]; therefore, in addition to the technical aspects of treatment, quality assurance in radiation medicine should also address all of the interdisciplinary interactions that occur along the patient’s path from initial consultation to posttreatment follow-up.14 Team-based interactions are difficult to change and manage, however.
We provided an interprofessional educational course at our institution that aimed to improve radiation medicine trainees’ ability to detect hazards and incidents and understand behaviors that can prevent them. Although simulation, compared with no intervention, has been shown to improve the knowledge, skills, and behaviors of health professionals, it remains to be determined whether simulation is superior to less resource-intensive educational interventions.15 The primary aim of this study therefore was to compare a live simulation-based exercise with a group discussion in terms of improving trainees’ hazard and incident-detection ability and their understanding of preventive behaviors. The secondary aim of the study was to compare participants’ perceptions of these 2 interventions.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
Institutional research ethics board approval was obtained. Participants were recruited from the University of Toronto and the Michener Institute programs in radiation therapy. A 3-year degree after 1 or more years of postsecondary education; radiation oncology, a 5-year residency after a doctor of medicine; and medical physics, a 2-year residency after a graduate degree. All of the activities described in this report occurred at the Michener Institute campus building with meeting rooms with
Participant characteristics
Thirty participants were enrolled in the study; however, 3 did not attend the training session. Participant characteristics are summarized in Table 2.
Sensitivity and specificity analysis
Of the 27 participants included in the analysis, 5 did not complete the video evaluations and were therefore excluded from the sensitivity and specificity analyses. Two videos (Table E1) were converted from videos that did contain a hazard or incident to videos that did not because of very low participant hazard or incident detection. Sensitivity
Discussion
The results stated in the Participant perceptions section suggest that there is a need to improve team-based learning opportunities at our institution. In an era of competency-based training and evaluations, such as that promoted and adopted by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada,18 these opportunities for practical interprofessional collaboration are essential. Simulation has been used in a variety of fields of medicine including surgery, anesthesia, and emergency medicine,
References (24)
- et al.
How safe is safe? Risk in radiotherapy
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(2010) - et al.
Trend analysis of radiation therapy incidents over seven years
Radiother Oncol
(2010) - et al.
Safety strategies in an academic radiation oncology department and recommendations for action
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
(2011) Failure mode and effect analysis: An application in reducing risk in blood transfusion
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
(2002)- et al.
Human factors risk management as a way to improve medical device safety: A case study of the Therac 25 radiation therapy system
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
(2004) Reducing errors during patient-controlled analgesia therapy through failure mode and effects analysis
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
(2010)Error prevention as developed in airlines
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(2008)- et al.
A culture of safety? An international comparison of radiation therapists' error reporting
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci
(2015) - et al.
Unintended exposure in radiotherapy: identification of prominent causes
Radiother Oncol
(2009) Surgical team training: Promoting high reliability with nontechnical skills
Surg Clin North Am
(2010)
The Canadian National System for Incident Reporting in Radiation Treatment (NSIR-RT) taxonomy
Pract Radiat Oncol
Radiation offers new cures, and ways to do harm
Cited by (2)
Health care providers’ perceptions of interprofessional simulation: A meta-ethnography
2020, Journal of Interprofessional Education and PracticeCitation Excerpt :The use of education through simulation has benefitted the patient in procedural tasks.5 Research has recommended simulation over discussion-based education to increase the perception and value of knowledge among health care professionals.6 Simulation has also been found to be the preferred method for nursing education due to the enhanced learning outcomes compared to traditional education methods.26
Interventions into Reliability-Seeking Health Care Organizations: A Systematic Review of Their Goals and Measuring Methods
2022, Journal of Patient Safety
Supplementary material for this article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2017.02.006) can be found at www.practicalradonc.org.
Sources of support: This project was supported by funding from SIM-One, the Ontario Simulation Network.
Conflicts of interest: None.