Interrater reliability of a near-miss risk index for incident learning systems in radiation oncology

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 429-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Mullen ◽  
Matthew Nyflot ◽  
Jing Zeng ◽  
Loucille Jordan ◽  
Patricia A. Sponseller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Risk Index ◽  
Learning Systems ◽  
Near Miss ◽  
Incident Learning

Assessing the Interrater Reliability of a Near Miss Risk Index for Incident Learning Systems

2015 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. E501 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.D. Mullen ◽  
M. Nyflot ◽  
J. Zeng ◽  
L. Jordan ◽  
P.A. Sponseller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Risk Index ◽  
Learning Systems ◽  
Near Miss ◽  
Incident Learning

TU-D-201-04: Veracity of Data Elements in Radiation Oncology Incident Learning Systems

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (6Part34) ◽  
pp. 3743-3744 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Kapur ◽  
S Evans ◽  
D Brown ◽  
G Ezzell ◽  
D Hoopes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Learning Systems ◽  
Data Elements ◽  
Incident Learning

The Structure of Incident Learning Systems for Radiation Oncology

2013 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric C. Ford ◽  
Luis Fong de Los Santos ◽  
Todd Pawlicki ◽  
Steven Sutlief ◽  
Peter Dunscombe
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Learning Systems ◽  
Incident Learning

scholarly journals Successful Adoption of an Incident Learning Systems in a Regionally Expanding Academic Radiation Oncology Department

2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. E560
Author(s):  
B. Rhieu ◽  
S.A. Terezakis ◽  
A.N. Souranis ◽  
A. Metzler ◽  
E.P. Armour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Learning Systems ◽  
Incident Learning

scholarly journals Evaluating incident learning systems and safety culture in two radiation oncology departments

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Adamson ◽  
Rachael Beldham‐Collins ◽  
Jonathan Sykes ◽  
David Thwaites
Keyword(s):  
Safety Culture ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Learning Systems ◽  
Incident Learning

Reduction of radiation safety incident reporting following implementation of the radiation oncology incident learning system (RO-ILS).

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 236-236
Author(s):  
Carl Nelson ◽  
Lori Ann Roy ◽  
H. James Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Process Improvement ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Radiation Safety ◽  
Medical Physics ◽  
Incident Reporting ◽  
Learning System ◽  
Near Miss ◽  
Radiation Incident ◽  
Safety Incident ◽  
Incident Learning

236 Background: The Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS) was initiated nationally June 2014 and is free, web-based, and currently used in more than 425 U.S. radiation facilities. RO-ILS was implemented at University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC) in October 2016 to facilitate safer, higher quality care. This implementation of RO-ILS was reviewed in order to determine whether the conversion to a new reporting system at UVMMC impacted radiation incident reporting at our institution. Methods: Radiation safety reporting at UVMMC included radiation incidents submitted by radiation therapists, dosimetrists and medical physics. Prior to RO-ILS, safety/quality incidents were submitted via a specified reporting form and submissions were reviewed monthly by the Radiation Oncology Quality Committee. After implementation of RO-ILS, radiation safety incidents were entered in RO-ILS and reviewed by the UVMMC RO-ILS administrator. Radiation incidents reported prior to October 2016 were entered into RO-ILS with the initial safety incident date. Results: Between April 2014 and May 2018, 136 radiation safety incidents were reported. There was a median of 7 incidents reported per quarter, decreasing from 8 to 6 per quarter after RO-ILS was implemented. Similarly, the average incidents per quarter was 8 and decreased from 8.9 to 6.7 per quarter after RO-ILS was implemented. Radiation incident types reported prior to RO-ILS were 78% “Near Miss” events but after RO-ILS decreased to 34%, while “Operational/Process Improvement” incidents increased from 17% pre RO-ILS to 49% post RO-ILS. The rate of radiation incidents reported per new patient starting radiation (the most frequent process associated with reported radiation incidents) was 0.59% and showed no significant trends or shifts before or after implementation of RO-ILS. Conclusions: Following implementation of RO-ILS at UVMMC, reported radiation incidents per quarter and the proportion of “Near Miss” events decreased, while the percentage of “Process Improvement” submissions increased. Further training and awareness of RO-ILS is planned with the goal of increasing staff participation and more robust reporting.

Psychological safety and near miss events in radiation oncology.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 231-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Palak Kundu ◽  
Olivia Jung ◽  
Kathy Rose ◽  
Chonlawan Khaothiemsang ◽  
Nzhde Agazaryan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Taking ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Psychological Safety ◽  
Learning Opportunities ◽  
Learning System ◽  
Near Miss ◽  
Radiation Process ◽  
Incident Learning ◽  
And Control ◽  
The Relationship

231 Background: Near miss events, defined as harm averted due to chance, are learning opportunities in radiation oncology. Psychological safety is a feature of a learning environment characterized by interpersonal risk taking. We examine the effects of near miss type and psychological safety on reporting near miss events to an incident learning system. We posit that submission likelihood will differ based on near miss types and psychological safety. Methods: We administered a survey assessing psychological safety to members of a radiation oncology department. We then presented six events for a patient with a pacemaker (PM), which requires cardiac clearance before radiation: process-based (harm averted by systematic PM check); good catch (harm averted by incidental PM check); “could” event (harm averted by chance PM absence); “almost” event (positive PM status, but no sequelae); hit (positive PM status, subsequent arrhythmia); and control (no PM, checked PM status, no sequelae). Subjects ranked each event on submission likelihood (1 = most likely, 7 = least likely), scored events based on submission likelihood by others (1 = least likely, 7 = most likely), and rated event success (1 = failure, 7 = success). ANOVA was used to assess differences in mean rank, submission likelihood, and success ratings. Regression was used to assess the relationship between psychological safety and submission likelihood. Results: The survey yielded 95 out of 127 responses (75%). Mean ranks (p < 0.0001), submission likelihood (p = .042), and success ratings (p < 0.001) differed by near miss type; psychological safety predicted likelihood of submitting the different near miss types (Table 1). 14 respondents (15%) would mind if an incident was submitted about them, while 43 respondents (45%) assume others would mind if an incident was reported related to the others (score > 4). Conclusions: Near miss events proximal to a negative outcome are more likely to be reported, though this effect may be mediated by psychological safety. [Table: see text]

MO-G-BRE-06: Metrics of Success: Measuring Participation and Attitudes Related to Near-Miss Incident Learning Systems

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (6Part25) ◽  
pp. 433-433
Author(s):  
MJ Nyflot ◽  
AS Kusano ◽  
J Zeng ◽  
JC Carlson ◽  
A Novak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Systems ◽  
Near Miss ◽  
Incident Learning

Do Emergent Treatments Result in More Severe Errors? Analysis of a Large Institutional Near-Miss Incident Learning Database

2014 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. S129-S130
Author(s):  
W. Gao ◽  
M.J. Nyflot ◽  
M. Gensheimer ◽  
P. Sponseller ◽  
L. Jordan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Near Miss ◽  
Incident Learning ◽  
Errors Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document