评估在例行的二次病人病历回顾中发现的错误的类型和频率

M. Hardin, A. Harrison, V. Lockamy, Jun Li, C. Peng, P. Potrebko, Yan Yu, L. Doyle, J. Cao
{"title":"评估在例行的二次病人病历回顾中发现的错误的类型和频率","authors":"M. Hardin, A. Harrison, V. Lockamy, Jun Li, C. Peng, P. Potrebko, Yan Yu, L. Doyle, J. Cao","doi":"10.6000/1929-2279.2017.06.01.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose : Desire to improve efficiency and throughput inspired a review of the frequency and scope of our physics chart check procedures. Departmental policy mandates review of a patient’s treatment plan prior to port-filming, after first treatment and “weekly” every 3-5 fractions. This study examined the effectiveness of the “after-first” physics check with respect to improving patient safety and clinical efficiency. Methods and Materials : A shared spreadsheet was created to record errors discovered during patient-specific chart review following the first fraction of treatment and before the second fraction. First, entries were recorded and categorized from August 2014 through February 2015. Frequencies were assessed month-to-month. Next, utilizing these results, a continuous quality improvement (CQI) process following Deming’s Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology was generated. The first iteration of this PDSA was adding a dose tracking checklist item in the pre-treatment plan check assessment. A two-sided Fisher’s exact test was used to determine if there was a nonrandom association between the checklist implementation and incidence of dose tracking errors. Results : Analysis of recorded errors indicated an overall error rate of 3.4% over the 13 month period. The majority of errors related to discrepancies in documentation, followed by prescription, plan deficiency, and dose tracking-related errors. A two-sided Fisher’s exact test revealed a statistically significant decrease in dose tracking-related errors after implementing the checklist item (p = 0.0322, significance level = 0.05). Conclusions : This work indicates that this redundant secondary check is an effective QA process in our department. The first month spike in rates could be due to the Hawthorne/observer effect, but the consistent 3% error rate suggests the need for continuous quality improvement and periodical re-training on errors noted as frequent to improve awareness and quality of the initial chart review process, which may lead to improved treatment quality, patient safety and increased clinical efficiency.","PeriodicalId":89799,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cancer research updates","volume":"6 1","pages":"19-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Type and Frequency of Errors Discovered During Routine Secondary Patient Chart Review\",\"authors\":\"M. Hardin, A. Harrison, V. Lockamy, Jun Li, C. Peng, P. Potrebko, Yan Yu, L. Doyle, J. Cao\",\"doi\":\"10.6000/1929-2279.2017.06.01.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose : Desire to improve efficiency and throughput inspired a review of the frequency and scope of our physics chart check procedures. Departmental policy mandates review of a patient’s treatment plan prior to port-filming, after first treatment and “weekly” every 3-5 fractions. This study examined the effectiveness of the “after-first” physics check with respect to improving patient safety and clinical efficiency. Methods and Materials : A shared spreadsheet was created to record errors discovered during patient-specific chart review following the first fraction of treatment and before the second fraction. First, entries were recorded and categorized from August 2014 through February 2015. Frequencies were assessed month-to-month. Next, utilizing these results, a continuous quality improvement (CQI) process following Deming’s Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology was generated. The first iteration of this PDSA was adding a dose tracking checklist item in the pre-treatment plan check assessment. A two-sided Fisher’s exact test was used to determine if there was a nonrandom association between the checklist implementation and incidence of dose tracking errors. Results : Analysis of recorded errors indicated an overall error rate of 3.4% over the 13 month period. The majority of errors related to discrepancies in documentation, followed by prescription, plan deficiency, and dose tracking-related errors. A two-sided Fisher’s exact test revealed a statistically significant decrease in dose tracking-related errors after implementing the checklist item (p = 0.0322, significance level = 0.05). Conclusions : This work indicates that this redundant secondary check is an effective QA process in our department. The first month spike in rates could be due to the Hawthorne/observer effect, but the consistent 3% error rate suggests the need for continuous quality improvement and periodical re-training on errors noted as frequent to improve awareness and quality of the initial chart review process, which may lead to improved treatment quality, patient safety and increased clinical efficiency.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of cancer research updates\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"19-24\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of cancer research updates\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-2279.2017.06.01.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cancer research updates","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-2279.2017.06.01.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:提高效率和吞吐量的愿望激发了对我们物理图表检查程序的频率和范围的审查。部门政策要求在拍摄前、首次治疗后以及每隔3-5次对患者的治疗计划œweeklyâ进行审查。本研究考察了 - œafter-firstâ -”物理检查在提高患者安全和临床效率方面的有效性。方法和材料:创建了一个共享的电子表格,记录在第一部分治疗后和第二部分治疗前对患者特定图表进行审查时发现的错误。首先,从2014年8月到2015年2月,条目被记录和分类。频率按月评估。接下来,利用这些结果,根据deming的计划-执行-研究-行动(PDSA)方法生成持续质量改进(CQI)过程。该PDSA的第一次迭代是在治疗前计划检查评估中增加剂量跟踪清单项目。采用双侧fisher 精确检验来确定检查表实施与剂量跟踪错误发生率之间是否存在非随机关联。结果:对记录错误的分析表明,13个月期间的总体错误率为3.4%。大多数错误与文件不符有关,其次是处方、计划缺陷和剂量跟踪相关的错误。双侧fisher 精确检验显示,实施清单项目后,剂量跟踪相关错误的减少具有统计学意义(p = 0.0322,显著性水平= 0.05)。结论:这项工作表明,这种冗余的二次检查是我们部门有效的质量保证过程。第一个月的错误率飙升可能是由于Hawthorne/observer效应,但始终如一的3%错误率表明,需要持续的质量改进和定期的再培训,以提高对初始图表审查过程的认识和质量,这可能会提高治疗质量、患者安全性和临床效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of the Type and Frequency of Errors Discovered During Routine Secondary Patient Chart Review
Purpose : Desire to improve efficiency and throughput inspired a review of the frequency and scope of our physics chart check procedures. Departmental policy mandates review of a patient’s treatment plan prior to port-filming, after first treatment and “weekly” every 3-5 fractions. This study examined the effectiveness of the “after-first” physics check with respect to improving patient safety and clinical efficiency. Methods and Materials : A shared spreadsheet was created to record errors discovered during patient-specific chart review following the first fraction of treatment and before the second fraction. First, entries were recorded and categorized from August 2014 through February 2015. Frequencies were assessed month-to-month. Next, utilizing these results, a continuous quality improvement (CQI) process following Deming’s Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology was generated. The first iteration of this PDSA was adding a dose tracking checklist item in the pre-treatment plan check assessment. A two-sided Fisher’s exact test was used to determine if there was a nonrandom association between the checklist implementation and incidence of dose tracking errors. Results : Analysis of recorded errors indicated an overall error rate of 3.4% over the 13 month period. The majority of errors related to discrepancies in documentation, followed by prescription, plan deficiency, and dose tracking-related errors. A two-sided Fisher’s exact test revealed a statistically significant decrease in dose tracking-related errors after implementing the checklist item (p = 0.0322, significance level = 0.05). Conclusions : This work indicates that this redundant secondary check is an effective QA process in our department. The first month spike in rates could be due to the Hawthorne/observer effect, but the consistent 3% error rate suggests the need for continuous quality improvement and periodical re-training on errors noted as frequent to improve awareness and quality of the initial chart review process, which may lead to improved treatment quality, patient safety and increased clinical efficiency.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信