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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |