Premium
MO‐F‐16A‐04: Case Study: Estimation of Peak Skin Dose Following a Physician Reported “High Dose” Case and Sentinel Event Considerations
Author(s) -
Supanich M,
Chu J,
Wehmeyer A
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4889175
Subject(s) - fluoroscopy , kerma , medicine , medical physics , root cause analysis , event (particle physics) , adverse effect , dosimetry , medical emergency , nuclear medicine , radiology , engineering , reliability engineering , quantum mechanics , physics
Purpose: This work offers as a teaching example a reported high dose fluoroscopy case and the workflow the institution followed to self‐report a radiation overdose sentinel event to the Joint Commission. Methods: Following the completion of a clinical case in a hybrid OR room with a reported air kerma of >18 Gy at the Interventional Reference Point (IRP) the physicians involved in the case referred study to the institution's Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) for review. The RSC assigned a Diagnostic Medical Physicist (DMP) to estimate the patient's Peak Skin Dose (PSD) and analyze the case. Following the DMP's analysis and estimate of a PSD of >15 Gy the institution's adverse event committee was convened to discuss the case and to self‐report the case as a radiation overdose sentinel event to the Joint Commission. The committee assigned a subgroup to perform the root cause analysis and develop institutional responses to the event. Results: The self‐reporting of the sentinel event and the associated root cause analysis resulted in several institutional action items that are designed to improve process and safety. A formal reporting and analysis mechanism was adopted to review fluoroscopy cases with air kerma greater than 6 Gy at the IRP. An improved and formalized radiation safety training program for physicians using fluoroscopy equipment was implemented. Additionally efforts already under way to monitor radiation exposure in the Radiology department were expanded to include all fluoroscopy equipment capable of automated dose reporting. Conclusion: The adverse event review process and the root cause analysis following the self‐reporting of the sentinel event resulted in policies and procedures that are expected to improve the quality and safe usage of fluoroscopy throughout the institution.