의학물리학

본문글자크기
  • 2017년 01월호
    [Med Phys.] A comparison of two prospective risk analysis methods: Traditional FMEA and a modified healthcare FMEA.

    University of California/라정은, 김귀야*

  • 출처
    Med Phys.
  • 등재일
    2016 Dec
  • 저널이슈번호
    43(12):6347.
  • 내용

    바로가기  >

    Abstract

    PURPOSE: 

    To examine the abilities of a traditional failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and modified healthcare FMEA (m-HFMEA) scoring methods by comparing the degree of congruence in identifying high risk failures.


    METHODS: 

    The authors applied two prospective methods of the quality management to surface image guided, linac-based radiosurgery (SIG-RS). For the traditional FMEA, decisions on how to improve an operation were based on the risk priority number (RPN). The RPN is a product of three indices: occurrence, severity, and detectability. The m-HFMEA approach utilized two indices, severity and frequency. A risk inventory matrix was divided into four categories: very low, low, high, and very high. For high risk events, an additional evaluation was performed. Based upon the criticality of the process, it was decided if additional safety measures were needed and what they comprise.


    RESULTS: 

    The two methods were independently compared to determine if the results and rated risks matched. The authors' results showed an agreement of 85% between FMEA and m-HFMEA approaches for top 20 risks of SIG-RS-specific failure modes. The main differences between the two approaches were the distribution of the values and the observation that failure modes (52, 54, 154) with high m-HFMEA scores do not necessarily have high FMEA-RPN scores. In the m-HFMEA analysis, when the risk score is determined, the basis of the established HFMEA Decision Tree™ or the failure mode should be more thoroughly investigated.

     

    CONCLUSIONS: 

    m-HFMEA is inductive because it requires the identification of the consequences from causes, and semi-quantitative since it allows the prioritization of high risks and mitigation measures. It is therefore a useful tool for the prospective risk analysis method to radiotherapy.

     

    Author information

    Rah JE1, Manger RP2, Yock AD2, Kim GY2.

    1Department of Radiation Oncology, Myongji Hospital, Goyang 10475, South Korea.

    2Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, California 92093. 

     

  • 편집위원

    최근 환자 맞춤형 고정밀 방사선치료가 임상에서 널리 적용되고 있어 방사선치료에 대한 사고 예방 및 질적 향상을 위한 노력 및 연구가 많이 진행되고 있다. 특히 미국의학물리학회(AAPM) 작업그룹 100(TG-100)

    덧글달기2017-01-04 16:51:09

  • 편집위원

    보고서에서는 사고유형영향평가(FMEA)와 FTA(Fault Tree Analysis) 등의 잠재적인 접근 방법을 사용하여 방사선치료 프로세스에서 리스크 관리 및 분석하는 것을 권고하고 있다.

    2017-01-04 16:51:09

  • 편집위원

    그러나 전통적인 FMEA는 보건 및 의료분야에서 적용하는 것에 여러 논쟁의 소지가 있다. 본 논문에서는 보건과 의료분야에 최적화된 HFMEA 방법 중 조금 더 빠르고 쉽게 접근 가능한,

    2017-01-04 16:51:09

  • 편집위원

    수정된 HFMA와 전통적인 FMEA을 사용하여 각각의 리스크의 심각도 순위를 비교해 보고 두 방법간에 일치도를 조사함으로써 타당성 및 유효성을 분석해 봄으로써 HFMEA가 방사선치료의 질적 향상 및 안전성 확보에

    2017-01-04 16:51:09

  • 편집위원

    대한 전향적인 리스크 관리 및 분석 방법에 유용한 도구가 될 것으로 사료된다.

    2017-01-04 16:51:09

  • 덧글달기
    덧글달기
       IP : 3.140.255.27

    등록