Cargando…

Failure mode and effects analysis: A community practice perspective

PURPOSE: To report our early experiences with failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) in a community practice setting. METHODS: The FMEA facilitator received extensive training at the AAPM Summer School. Early efforts focused on department education and emphasized the need for process evaluation in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schuller, Bradley W., Burns, Angi, Ceilley, Elizabeth A., King, Alan, LeTourneau, Joan, Markovic, Alexander, Sterkel, Lynda, Taplin, Brigid, Wanner, Jennifer, Albert, Jeffrey M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28944980
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12190
_version_ 1783279490581921792
author Schuller, Bradley W.
Burns, Angi
Ceilley, Elizabeth A.
King, Alan
LeTourneau, Joan
Markovic, Alexander
Sterkel, Lynda
Taplin, Brigid
Wanner, Jennifer
Albert, Jeffrey M.
author_facet Schuller, Bradley W.
Burns, Angi
Ceilley, Elizabeth A.
King, Alan
LeTourneau, Joan
Markovic, Alexander
Sterkel, Lynda
Taplin, Brigid
Wanner, Jennifer
Albert, Jeffrey M.
author_sort Schuller, Bradley W.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To report our early experiences with failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) in a community practice setting. METHODS: The FMEA facilitator received extensive training at the AAPM Summer School. Early efforts focused on department education and emphasized the need for process evaluation in the context of high profile radiation therapy accidents. A multidisciplinary team was assembled with representation from each of the major department disciplines. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) was identified as the most appropriate treatment technique for the first FMEA evaluation, as it is largely self‐contained and has the potential to produce high impact failure modes. Process mapping was completed using breakout sessions, and then compiled into a simple electronic format. Weekly sessions were used to complete the FMEA evaluation. Risk priority number (RPN) values > 100 or severity scores of 9 or 10 were considered high risk. The overall time commitment was also tracked. RESULTS: The final SRS process map contained 15 major process steps and 183 subprocess steps. Splitting the process map into individual assignments was a successful strategy for our group. The process map was designed to contain enough detail such that another radiation oncology team would be able to perform our procedures. Continuous facilitator involvement helped maintain consistent scoring during FMEA. Practice changes were made responding to the highest RPN scores, and new resulting RPN scores were below our high‐risk threshold. The estimated person‐hour equivalent for project completion was 258 hr. CONCLUSIONS: This report provides important details on the initial steps we took to complete our first FMEA, providing guidance for community practices seeking to incorporate this process into their quality assurance (QA) program. Determining the feasibility of implementing complex QA processes into different practice settings will take on increasing significance as the field of radiation oncology transitions into the new TG‐100 QA paradigm.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5689935
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56899352018-04-02 Failure mode and effects analysis: A community practice perspective Schuller, Bradley W. Burns, Angi Ceilley, Elizabeth A. King, Alan LeTourneau, Joan Markovic, Alexander Sterkel, Lynda Taplin, Brigid Wanner, Jennifer Albert, Jeffrey M. J Appl Clin Med Phys Management and Profession PURPOSE: To report our early experiences with failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) in a community practice setting. METHODS: The FMEA facilitator received extensive training at the AAPM Summer School. Early efforts focused on department education and emphasized the need for process evaluation in the context of high profile radiation therapy accidents. A multidisciplinary team was assembled with representation from each of the major department disciplines. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) was identified as the most appropriate treatment technique for the first FMEA evaluation, as it is largely self‐contained and has the potential to produce high impact failure modes. Process mapping was completed using breakout sessions, and then compiled into a simple electronic format. Weekly sessions were used to complete the FMEA evaluation. Risk priority number (RPN) values > 100 or severity scores of 9 or 10 were considered high risk. The overall time commitment was also tracked. RESULTS: The final SRS process map contained 15 major process steps and 183 subprocess steps. Splitting the process map into individual assignments was a successful strategy for our group. The process map was designed to contain enough detail such that another radiation oncology team would be able to perform our procedures. Continuous facilitator involvement helped maintain consistent scoring during FMEA. Practice changes were made responding to the highest RPN scores, and new resulting RPN scores were below our high‐risk threshold. The estimated person‐hour equivalent for project completion was 258 hr. CONCLUSIONS: This report provides important details on the initial steps we took to complete our first FMEA, providing guidance for community practices seeking to incorporate this process into their quality assurance (QA) program. Determining the feasibility of implementing complex QA processes into different practice settings will take on increasing significance as the field of radiation oncology transitions into the new TG‐100 QA paradigm. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-09-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5689935/ /pubmed/28944980 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12190 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Management and Profession
Schuller, Bradley W.
Burns, Angi
Ceilley, Elizabeth A.
King, Alan
LeTourneau, Joan
Markovic, Alexander
Sterkel, Lynda
Taplin, Brigid
Wanner, Jennifer
Albert, Jeffrey M.
Failure mode and effects analysis: A community practice perspective
title Failure mode and effects analysis: A community practice perspective
title_full Failure mode and effects analysis: A community practice perspective
title_fullStr Failure mode and effects analysis: A community practice perspective
title_full_unstemmed Failure mode and effects analysis: A community practice perspective
title_short Failure mode and effects analysis: A community practice perspective
title_sort failure mode and effects analysis: a community practice perspective
topic Management and Profession
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28944980
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12190
work_keys_str_mv AT schullerbradleyw failuremodeandeffectsanalysisacommunitypracticeperspective
AT burnsangi failuremodeandeffectsanalysisacommunitypracticeperspective
AT ceilleyelizabetha failuremodeandeffectsanalysisacommunitypracticeperspective
AT kingalan failuremodeandeffectsanalysisacommunitypracticeperspective
AT letourneaujoan failuremodeandeffectsanalysisacommunitypracticeperspective
AT markovicalexander failuremodeandeffectsanalysisacommunitypracticeperspective
AT sterkellynda failuremodeandeffectsanalysisacommunitypracticeperspective
AT taplinbrigid failuremodeandeffectsanalysisacommunitypracticeperspective
AT wannerjennifer failuremodeandeffectsanalysisacommunitypracticeperspective
AT albertjeffreym failuremodeandeffectsanalysisacommunitypracticeperspective