TY - JOUR
T1 - Incorporating Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) Into Analysis of Reported Near Misses and Incidents in Radiation Oncology
AU - Judy, Gregory D.
AU - Lindsay, Daniel P.
AU - Gu, Deen
AU - Mullins, Brandon T.
AU - Mosaly, Prithima R.
AU - Marks, Lawrence B.
AU - Chera, Bhishamjit S.
AU - Mazur, Lukasz M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American Society for Radiation Oncology
PY - 2020/9/1
Y1 - 2020/9/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85073825717
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85073825717#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1016/j.prro.2019.09.005
DO - 10.1016/j.prro.2019.09.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 31526899
AN - SCOPUS:85073825717
SN - 1879-8500
VL - 10
SP - e312-e321
JO - Practical Radiation Oncology
JF - Practical Radiation Oncology
IS - 5
ER -