Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Incorporating Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) Into Analysis of Reported Near Misses and Incidents in Radiation Oncology

  • Gregory D. Judy
  • , Daniel P. Lindsay
  • , Deen Gu
  • , Brandon T. Mullins
  • , Prithima R. Mosaly
  • , Lawrence B. Marks
  • , Bhishamjit S. Chera
  • , Lukasz M. Mazur
  • Radiation Oncology Associates
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Purpose: Human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) is a framework for investigation into causation of human errors. We herein assess whether radiation oncology professionals, with brief training, can conduct HFACS on reported near misses or safety incidents (NMSIs) in a reliable (eg, with a high level of agreement) and practical (eg, timely and with user satisfaction) manner. Methods and Materials: We adapted a classical HFACS framework by selecting and modifying main headings, subheadings, and nano-codes that were most likely to apply to radiation oncology settings. The final modified HFACS included 3 main headings, 8 subheadings, and 20 nano-codes. The modified HFACS was first tested in a simulated trial on 8 NMSI and was analyzed by 5 to 10 radiation oncology professionals, with 2 endpoints: (1) agreement among participants at the main-heading, subheading, and nano-code level, and (2) time to complete the analysis. We then performed a prospective trial integrating this approach into a weekly NMSI review meeting, with 10 NMSIs analyzed by 8 to 13 radiation oncology professionals with the same endpoints, while also collecting survey data on participants’ satisfaction. Results: In the simulated trial, agreement among participants was 85% on the main headings, 73% on the subheadings, and 70% on the nano-codes. Participants needed, on average, 16.4 minutes (standard deviation, 5.7 minutes) to complete an analysis. In the prospective trial, agreement between participants was 81% on the main headings, 75% on the subheadings, and 74% on the nano-codes. Participants needed, on average, 8.3 minutes (standard deviation, 4.7 minutes) to complete an analysis. The average satisfaction with the proposed HFACS approach was 3.9 (standard deviation 1.0) on a scale from 1 to 5. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that, after relatively brief training, radiation oncology professionals were able to perform HFACS analysis in a reliable and timely manner and with a relatively high level of satisfaction.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e312-e321
JournalPractical Radiation Oncology
Volume10
Issue number5
DOIs
StatusPublished - Sep 1 2020
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this