Search

Purpose Incident learning is a critical tool to improve patient safety. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 established essential legal protections to allow for the collection and analysis of medical incidents nationwide. Methods and materials Working with a federally listed patient safety organization (PSO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine established RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). This paper provides an overview of the RO-ILS background, development, structure, and workflow, as well as examples of preliminary data and lessons learned. RO-ILS is actively collecting, analyzing, and reporting patient safety events. Results As of February 24, 2015, 46 institutions have signed contracts with Clarity PSO, with 33 contracts pending. Of these, 27 sites have entered 739 patient safety events into local database space, with 358 events (48%) pushed to the national database. Conclusions To establish an optimal safety culture, radiation oncology departments should establish formal systems for incident learning that include participation in a nationwide incident learning program such as RO-ILS.

59 Background: Incident learning is one of the most effective ways to improve quality care. To facilitate patient safety improvement at a national level, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) launched RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System in June 2014. RO-ILS mission is to facilitate safer and higher quality care through a shared learning environment that is secure and non-punitive. Methods: To ensure the security and protection of data, ASTRO contracted with Clarity PSO, a federally-certified patient safety organization that operates under the auspices of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005. Radiation oncology practices sign a no-fee contract with Clarity PSO to participate in RO-ILS and then enter safety data into a customized web-based portal. Submitted data are analyzed and interpreted by the Radiation Oncology Healthcare Advisory Council (RO-HAC), a multi-professional team. Practices receive aggregate quarterly reports and institutional reports when substantial data are submitted. Results: During the first year, 61 US practices (123) facilities signed contracts. 42 practices entered 1259 events and 619 of these events (49%) were submitted to the national database. Types of events included: 242 (39%) incidents that reached the patient with or without harm; 206 (33%) near-misses; and 171 (28%) unsafe conditions. RO-HAC identified risk-prone processes including ineffective communication, compressed timelines to start treatment, changes to treatment during the course of therapy and junior practitioners’ errors not remedied by experienced staff. Conclusions: Data suggests that quality assurance processes were effective in catching errors; however, continued work needs to address the origin of these errors and suggest robust solutions. To facilitate improved communication, effective protocols and software enhancements are recommended to alert staff to changes in patients’ management. Policies and procedures on patient hand-offs, emergency cases and oversight of junior staff will help error mitigation. While in its infancy, RO-ILS provides useful data and will serve to improve the quality and safety of radiotherapy.

Performance Assessment for the Advancement of Radiation Oncology Treatment (PAAROT) is a practice quality improvement program. This study seeks to determine baseline performance rates and practice variation from PAAROT data.The cohort includes all physicians from academic, hospital, and free-standing settings who completed at least 10 consecutive self-audited medical records in the PAAROT program (version 2.5) from 2010 to 2011 (n = 519 medical records). Mean performance rates were analyzed at the physician and medical record levels and, where appropriate, were stratified by the physician's practice setting.Forty-nine physicians were included in the study; 22 (45%), 17 (35%), and 10 (20%) physicians practiced in a hospital, academic, or a free-standing setting, respectively. The measures with a high adoption rate (more than 80%) include the following: documentation of history and physical; review of physics and dosimetry plan by radiation oncologist; patient informed risks of therapy; evaluation of acute symptoms during therapy; pathology in consultation note; communication of treatment summary within 30 days of treatment completion; documentation of intent of treatment, use of clinical guidelines or published data; and documentation of American Joint Committee on Cancer staging. Lower rates of adoption were noted (mean, 65%; range, 0-100%) when these measures were converted to a composite measure. Low adherence was noted for screening of a pain using a standard scale (mean, 58%; range, 0-100%). Physicians from an academic setting scored higher on the composite measure (40%) compared with those from a hospital setting (36%) and from a free-standing setting (24%); (P.001). Physicians from a hospital setting scored higher on the quality indicator of screening for pain (54%) compared with physicians from an academic setting (35%) and free-standing setting (11%) (P.001).This first assessment of PAAROT (version 2.5) data provides an initial snapshot on the use of quality indicators and practice patterns for radiation oncology. Self-reported practice data and the use of quality indicators will become important for the purpose of continuous, prospective evidence-based learning on an individual basis. Despite the small sample size, the data from this study will help address potential improvement opportunities for the next iteration of the PAAROT program.