Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35536772›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022

Assessing initial plan check efficacy using TG 275 failure modes and incident reporting.

Adam C Riegel, Cynthia Polvorosa, Anurag Sharma, Jameson Baker, William Ge, Joseph Lauritano, Emel Calugaru, Jenghwa Chang, Jeffrey Antone, Angela Oliveira and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Adam C RiegelDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Cynthia PolvorosaDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Anurag SharmaDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Jameson BakerDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
William GeDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Joseph LauritanoDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Emel CalugaruDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Jenghwa ChangDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Jeffrey AntoneDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Angela OliveiraDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Walkiria BuckenbergerDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
William ChenDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Yijian CaoDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Ajay KapurDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Louis PottersDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, Lake Success, New York, USA.
Northwell Health · USDonald & Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plan checks are important components of a robust quality assurance (QA) program. Recently, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) published two reports concerning plan and chart checking, Task Group (TG) 275 and Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) 11.A. The purpose of the current study was to crosswalk initial plan check failure modes revealed in TG 275 against our institutional QA program and local incident reporting data. Ten physicists reviewed 46 high-risk failure modes reported in Table S1.A.i of the TG 275 report. The committee identified steps in our planning process which sufficiently checked each failure mode. Failure modes that were not covered were noted for follow-up. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed the narratives of 1599 locally-reported incidents in our Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (ROILS) database and categorized each into the high-risk TG 275 failure modes. We found that over half of the 46 high-risk failure modes, six of which were top-ten failure modes, were covered in part by daily contouring peer-review rounds, upstream of the traditional initial plan check. Five failure modes were not adequately covered, three of which concerned pregnancy, pacemakers, and prior dose. Of the 1599 incidents analyzed, 710 were germane to the initial plan check, 23.4% of which concerned missing pregnancy attestations. Most, however, were caught prior to CT simulation (98.8%). Physics review and initial plan check were the least efficacious checks, with error detection rates of 31.8% and 31.3%, respectively, for some failure modes. Our QA process that includes daily contouring rounds resulted in increased upstream error detection. This work has led to several initiatives in the department, including increased automation and enhancement of several policies and procedures. With TG 275 and MPPG 11.A as a guide, we strongly recommend that departments consider an internal chart checking policy and procedure review.

Indexed as

Radiation OncologyRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAutomationHumansPhysicsRisk ManagementChart checkingincident reportingpatient safetyquality management

Identifiers

PMID35536772
PMCPMC9194987
OpenAlexW4280500368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.