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}
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.