↓ Skip to main content

FMECA Application to Intraoperative Electron Beam Radiotherapy Procedure As a Quality Method to Prevent and Reduce Patient’s Risk in Conservative Surgery for Breast Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
FMECA Application to Intraoperative Electron Beam Radiotherapy Procedure As a Quality Method to Prevent and Reduce Patient’s Risk in Conservative Surgery for Breast Cancer
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00138
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristiana Vidali, Mara Severgnini, Monica Urbani, Licia Toscano, Alfredo Perulli, Marina Bortul

Abstract

Failure Mode Effects and Criticalities Analysis (FMECA) represents a prospective method for risk assessment in complex medical practices. Our objective was to describe the application of FMECA approach to intraoperative electron beam radiotherapy (IOERT), delivered using a mobile linear accelerator, for the treatment of early breast cancer as an anticipated boost. A multidisciplinary Working Group, including several different professional profiles, was created before the beginning of clinical practice in 2012, with the purpose of writing the Flow Chart and applying the FMECA methodology to IOERT procedure. Several criticalities were identified a priori in the different steps of the procedure and a list of all potential failure modes (FMs) was drafted and ranked using the risk priority number (RPN) scoring system, based on the product of three parameters: severity, occurrence, and detectability (score between 1 and 5). The actions aimed at reducing the risk were then defined by the Working Group and the risk analysis was repeated in 2014 and in 2016, in order to assess the improvement achieved. Fifty-one FMs were identified, which represented the issues prospectively investigated according to the FMECA methodology. Considering a set threshold of 30, the evaluated RPNs show that 33 out of 51 FMs are critical; 6 are included in the moderate risk class (RPN: 31-40); 16 in the intermediate risk class (RPN: 41-50), and 11 in the high risk class (RPN: >50). The most critical steps concerned the surgical procedure and IOERT set-up. The introduction of the corrective actions into the clinical practice achieved the reduction of the RPNs in the re-analysis of the FMECA worksheet after 2 and 4 years, respectively. FMECA proved to be a useful tool for prospective evaluation of potential failures in IOERT and contributed to optimize patient safety and to improve risk management culture among all the professionals of the Working Group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 15%
Other 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 11 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 19%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 12 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,569,430
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,988
of 5,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,526
of 316,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#47
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.