A Qualitative Analysis of Human Error During the DIBH Procedure

Abstract

IntroductionThis quality assurance study analyzed human errors that occurred during the radiation treatment delivery of the deep-inspiration breath hold (DIBH) technique at a tertiary cancer centre. The intention is to recommend solutions and system changes that have the potential to decrease the frequency of errors based on human factors principles. MethodsEighty-two incident reports from January 2012 to July 2017 were retrieved and analysed to determine theme bins of performance-influencing factors contributing to the error. Performance-influencing factors were generated from the incident reports and from focus group discussions with volunteer radiation therapists in the department. Potential solutions to mitigate the error were sought from incident reports, focus groups, literature search, and an interview with a human factors specialist. The solutions were ranked based on the hierarchy of effectiveness, and recommendations were classified using a priority matrix. ResultsEighty-nine percent of the errors captured in the incident reports were defined as a slip or lapse error type, and 11% of the remaining errors were defined as a mistake error type. Treatment-related problem solving and distractions/interruptions were the highest frequency causative factors that contributed to the observed error. Potential solutions that were suggested across sources included implementing a forcing function, such as the real-time position management system, adding reminders, such as a console sign-off, and updating the current task checklist. DiscussionThe potential solutions generated were summarized into four recommendations that have varying degrees of association with known causative factors. The four recommendations include investing in (1) a forcing function, (2) updating/reinforcing the procedure, (3) managing workload, and (4) updating the checklist. A priority matrix was used to assess both potential effectiveness and cost/effort of each recommendation. Ideally, recommendation 1 would be implemented; however, it is understood that there would be an associated cost. It is therefore suggested that recommendations 2, 3, and 4 are implemented together to increase the effectiveness of the intervention until recommendation 1 can be achieved. ConclusionThis qualitative study introduced a method that analyzed human factors in a specialized procedure used in the treatment of a specific population of patients with cancer. Recommendations were formulated and proposed to the radiation therapy department in hopes of potentially decreasing the frequency of this specific error in the future.