Oncology treatment errors: Emerging data shed light on risk factors, prevention
AT THE QUALITY CARE SYMPOSIUM
ORLANDO – Accumulating evidence is helping researchers better understand why errors occur during the delivery of cancer treatment and how to prevent them. Findings from a trio of studies were reported at a symposium on quality care sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Identifying causes of incidents in radiation therapy
In the first study, Greg D. Judy, MD, a radiation oncology resident at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his colleagues retrospectively reviewed records in their institution’s reporting system, called Good Catch, to identify near-miss incidents (ones that didn’t reach the patient) and safety incidents (ones that did) among patients undergoing radiation therapy from October 2014 through April 2016.
Multivariate analysis showed that patients had a significantly higher risk of near-miss or safety incidents if they had stage T2 disease (odds ratio, 3.3), were being treated for cancer involving the head and neck (5.2), or were receiving image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (3.0) or daily imaging as part of their treatment (7.0), Dr. Judy reported.
“Head and neck site and image-guided IMRT [intensity-modulated radiation therapy] are complex entities: They have multiple steps in both the planning and delivery phase,” he said. “Daily imaging as well. It’s a much more complex process to do daily imaging for setup verification than it is to do once-a-week or even once-every-2-weeks setup verification.”
On the other hand, it was unclear why T2 stage was a risk factor. “We kind of hypothesized that it might be more of the disease site that really drives this, as you can have HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer which usually has lower T stages and more advanced nodal stages, but even then, that’s a head and neck site and we usually use image-guided IMRT, which are both very complex entities,” he said. The most common root causes for the incidents were issues related to documentation and scheduling (29% each), followed by issues related to communication (22%), technical treatment planning (14%), and technical treatment delivery (6%).
Incidents having a communication root cause were more likely than were others to affect patients (P less than .001), and those having a technical treatment delivery root cause were more likely to have higher severity (P = .005).
“Like some other studies, we found really the key factor was the complexity of the treatment plan and complexity of the overall process that is the real driving factor. This is important to understand because it promotes the idea of developing a more dedicated and robust QA system for complex cases,” said Dr. Judy. “It also highlights the importance of a strong reporting system to support a safety culture, as well as promote the continuous learning improvements within a department.”
The national Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS) has been developed by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO). “This is gaining membership very rapidly, and it’s good because it facilitates cooperative research and also safety standards for our field,” he maintained.
“I’ll argue that they did that for a variety of reasons,” he elaborated. “Strong and effective leadership by Dr. Larry Marks, who’s really created a departmental culture of safety in which people can feel free to speak up. They have this wonderful Good Catch program in place. And they have these simulation review huddles ... where people feel free to talk about what happened yesterday or today that may be relevant moving forward.”
As for the national RO-ILS initiative, “I would look out to the audience and say, why is it that we don’t have such a program in medical oncology?” Dr. Jacobson said. “It’s probably time for us to do this,” he maintained.
Reducing chemotherapy errors in pediatric oncology
In the second study, Brian D. Weiss, MD, associate director of safety and compliance at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and his colleagues studied the impact of a safety initiative to prevent chemotherapy errors at their large urban pediatric academic center (J Clin Oncol 35, 2017 [suppl 8S; abstract 37]).
