Information Notice 2000-22, Medical Misadministrations Caused by Human Errors Involving Gamma Stereotactic Radiosurgery (Gamma Knife): Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| issue date = 12/18/2000 | | issue date = 12/18/2000 | ||
| title = Medical Misadministrations Caused by Human Errors Involving Gamma Stereotactic Radiosurgery (Gamma Knife) | | title = Medical Misadministrations Caused by Human Errors Involving Gamma Stereotactic Radiosurgery (Gamma Knife) | ||
| author name = Cool D | | author name = Cool D | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/NMSS/IMNS | | author affiliation = NRC/NMSS/IMNS | ||
| addressee name = | | addressee name = | ||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| document type = NRC Information Notice | | document type = NRC Information Notice | ||
| page count = 7 | | page count = 7 | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:}} | {{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES | ||
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | |||
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS | |||
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 18, 2000 | |||
NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2000- 22: MEDICAL MISADMINISTRATIONS CAUSED BY | |||
HUMAN ERRORS INVOLVING GAMMA | |||
STEREOTACTIC RADIOSURGERY | |||
(GAMMA KNIFE) | |||
==Addressees== | |||
: | |||
All medical licensees authorized to conduct gamma stereotactic radiosurgery treatments. | |||
==Purpose== | |||
: | |||
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information notice (IN) to | |||
remind addressees of the importance of following written directives and treatment planning | |||
procedures, and the need to pay attention to detail during preparation and administration of | |||
gamma stereotactic radiosurgery. It is expected that recipients will review the information for | |||
applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar problems. | |||
However, suggestions contained in this IN are not new NRC requirements; therefore, no | |||
specific action nor written response is required. | |||
==Description of Circumstances== | |||
: | |||
NRC has become aware of 16 medical misadministrations, involving gamma stereotactic | |||
radiosurgery, that have occurred during the past few years. Fifteen of these 16 misadministrations were attributed to human error, especially while entering data into a | |||
computer treatment program and during the verification of patient coordinate settings. The | |||
descriptions of the 15 misadministrations are summarized in Attachment 1. | |||
Discussion: | |||
The most common reported human error is the transposition of coordinate settings, mainly the | |||
Y and Z coordinates. Other human errors are the selection of incorrect parameters such as | |||
treatment sites, doses, and exposure times, and failure to follow established procedures. | |||
Licensees have adopted the following corrective actions to prevent recurrence | |||
of misadministrations: | |||
1. A licensee requires two independent checks of the X, Y and Z coordinate settings before | |||
each exposure, instead of one independent check, to reduce the transposition of | |||
coordinates. In a single check, the coordinates are called out and person A sets the | |||
coordinates, then Person B checks them against the written treatment plan. In a double | |||
check, person A sets the coordinates, then Persons B and C independently check them | |||
against the written treatment plan. | |||
2. Another licensee requires a minimum of three staff members to set the X, Y, and Z | |||
coordinates on the stereotactic frame to reduce the probability of transposition errors. | |||
Treatment is administered only after the three staff members concur on the | |||
coordinate settings. | |||
3. A licensee limits the conversations in the treatment room to only those required for the | |||
treatment of the patient, and restricts telephone calls in the treatment control area. These | |||
actions reduce distractions to members of the treatment team. | |||
4. A licensee requires the neurosurgeon, the radiation oncologist, and the medical physicist to | |||
verify the treatment plan before each procedure. The neurosurgeon and either the | |||
radiation physicist or the radiation oncologist has to be physically present during the | |||
treatment. This oversight improves procedure adherence and attention to detail. | |||
5. A licensee requires marking each page of the patient treatment plan with a unique name | |||
and time stamp that the radiation oncologist or medical physicist has to initial before | |||
delivery of the radiosurgery treatment. This prevents the transposition of a patient | |||
treatment sheet from one medical file to another among patients receiving the same type | |||
of treatment on the same day. | |||
The medical physicist participation in the entire treatment-planning process is important, especially during the pretreatment review of the treatment plan. Neurosurgeon and radiation | |||
oncologist collaboration at critical points in the process, such as dose selection, approval of the | |||
written plan, and initiation of the treatment, is also essential. Licensees are reminded that | |||
10 CFR 35.32(a)(1) requires that written directives be prepared before administration of gamma | |||
sterotactic radiosurgery. Subsections 35.32(a)(3) and (4) require that final treatment plans and | |||
related calculations, and each administration, are in accord with the respective written | |||
directives. It is important that written directives and procedures are kept up to date and provide | |||
adequate information. It is also important that management place a high value on staff | |||
following all procedures and directives; that all staff are adequately trained; and that training | |||
programs are effective in relaying necessary information. In all the cases listed in | |||
Attachment 1, written directives and procedures were in place. However, a lack of attention to | |||
detail, failure to adhere to the procedures and directives, or a failure to perform adequate, independent verification of treatment plans, patient identities, and treatment doses, contributed | |||
to misadministrations. This information notice requires no specific action nor written response. If you have any | |||
questions about the information in this notice, please contact the technical contact listed below | |||
or the appropriate NRC regional office. | |||
/RA/ | |||
Donald A. Cool, Director | |||
Division of Industrial and | |||
Medical Nuclear Safety | |||
Office of Nuclear Material Safety | |||
and Safeguards | |||
===Technical Contact:=== | |||
===Roberto J. Torres, NMSS=== | |||
(301) 415-8112 E-mail: rjt@nrc.gov | |||
Attachments: | |||
1. Description of event circumstances | |||
2. List of Recently Issued NMSS Information Notices | |||
3. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices This information notice requires no specific action nor written response. If you have any | |||
questions about the information in this notice, please contact the technical contact listed below | |||
or the appropriate NRC regional office. | |||
/RA/ | |||
Donald A. Cool, Director | |||
Division of Industrial and | |||
Medical Nuclear Safety | |||
Office of Nuclear Material Safety | |||
and Safeguards | |||
===Technical Contact:=== | |||
===Roberto J. Torres, NMSS=== | |||
(301) 415-8112 E-mail: rjt@nrc.gov | |||
Attachments: | |||
1. Description of event circumstances | |||
2. List of Recently Issued NMSS Information Notices | |||
3. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices | |||
DOCUMENT NAME: ML003761619 OFFICE MSIB C Editor N MSIB N MSIB MSIB N IMNS N | |||
NAME RTorres/RA/ EKraus/fax FBrown/RA/ JHickey/RA/ CTrottier/RA/ DCool/RA/ | |||
DATE 9/29/00 10/05/00 10/22/00 10/25/00 12/11/00 12/11/00 | |||
& 12/4/00 & 12/01/00 & 12/6/00 & 12/6/00 | |||
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY | |||
Attachment 1 DESCRIPTION OF EVENT CIRCUMSTANCES | |||
1. A patient being treated for brain lesions was undergoing the fourth of five planned | |||
treatments, when a treatment site received an unintended repeat dose because of | |||
inattention to detail. The treatment site was supposed to receive 1200 centiGray (cGy) | |||
(rad), but instead received 2400 cGy (rad). | |||
2. A patient being treated for pituitary adenoma received a dose of 1260 cGy (rad) to an | |||
unintended site of his frontal lobe. The unintended site was approximately 4.2 centimeters | |||
(cm) (1.65 inches) away from the intended site. The treatment planning for the patient was | |||
uneventful. A nurse and the medical physicist checked the adjustments on the device | |||
stereotactic frame for accuracy. Nonetheless, when staff members started to set up the | |||
patient for a second administration, they realized the Y and Z coordinates on the | |||
stereotactic frame were transposed on the previous treatment. | |||
3. A gamma knife unit was set up incorrectly and delivered a dose to the wrong site on a | |||
patients brain. A radiosurgery treatment was to be delivered to Patient As left trigeminal | |||
nerve. On that same date, Patient B was also scheduled to receive the same treatment as | |||
Patient A. During the signature phase of treatment plan approval, Patient Bs dose delivery | |||
treatment sheet was inadvertently transposed with that of Patient A. Therefore, Patient A | |||
was treated with the radiosurgery parameters that were intended for Patient B. This | |||
resulted in a dose of 8000 cGy (rad) delivered to the wrong treatment site. The actual dose | |||
received by the intended treatment site was 20 cGy (rad). | |||
4. A patient being treated for an arteriovenous malformation, in the left part of his brain, received treatment to the right side of his brain. During the treatment planning process, the computer software refused several times to accept the correct orientation (as viewed | |||
by the planning team) of the patients image. Eventually, the neurosurgeon and the | |||
medical physicist instructed the computer system to accept the image they believed to be | |||
correct. After initiating the treatment, the physicist noticed that the X coordinates indicated | |||
a definite right-side target and stopped the treatment. The physicist and the neurosurgeon | |||
were unaware that a different angiography room had been used to acquire the patients X- | |||
ray images during the quality assurance (QA) runs. QA tests had been performed in what | |||
the physicist believed to be the only angiographic suite. This room was equipped in such a | |||
way that the lateral X-ray tube could only be on the patients right side, with the patient in a | |||
supine position. The actual angiographs were performed in another room where the tube | |||
focus was on the patients left side. | |||
5. A patient received a dose of 3000 cGy (rad) to the intended site of his brain, instead of the | |||
prescribed dose of 2300 cGy (rad). This event was caused because the licensee did not | |||
follow the treatment plan and used an incorrect collimator helmet. | |||
Attachment 1 6. A patient received a dose 54.5 percent below the intended dose. The prescribed dose was | |||
2200 cGy (rad) and the patient received a dose of 1000 cGy (rad). The treatment | |||
physician failed to enter the prescribed dose into the treatment planning system. This | |||
resulted in the systems default value (1000 cGy) (rad) being used for the treatment. The | |||
error was missed by all three team members involved in the treatment planning. | |||
7. A patient received a total treatment dose that differed from the prescribed dose by more | |||
than 10 percent. As the third treatment site was being prepared for treatment | |||
administration, the licensee discovered that the patients position would have to be | |||
changed from supine to prone, to physically achieve the appropriate coordinates. When | |||
replanning the third area of treatment, the neurosurgeon and the medical physicist realized | |||
the Y and Z coordinates were transposed during the previous treatment. | |||
8. A patient was prescribed a treatment of 9000 cGy (rad) to the left trigeminal nerve of his | |||
brain. However, the treatment was actually administered to the right trigeminal nerve. The | |||
medical physicist had inadvertedly prepared a treatment plan for the wrong side of the | |||
patients head and the radiation oncologist (authorized user) signed the treatment plan | |||
without properly verifying the neurosurgeons request identifying the correct site. | |||
9. A patient received treatment to an unintended area of his brain. The treatment plan called | |||
for three doses of radiation. The first treatment was set up and delivered to the patient. | |||
When the coordinates for the second treatment were set, it was discovered that the Y and | |||
Z coordinates had been transposed on the first treatment. The prescribed dose for the first | |||
treatment was 1100 cGy (rad), but 50 cGy (rad) were administered. The licensee indicated | |||
that possible contributing factors to this event were: a) the reduction to two staff members, instead of the usual three, for setting up the patient; and b) the Z coordinate was set before | |||
attaching the Z bar to the stereotactic frame. | |||
10. A patient received a dose of 2600 cGy (rad) to the first of three lesions, instead of the | |||
prescribed dose of 1600 cGy (rad). During preparation of the treatment plan for the | |||
second lesion, the settings for the first treatment site were unintentionally used. This | |||
resulted in two treatments to the first lesion. The error was not identified, even though the | |||
neurosurgeon and the radiation oncologist reviewed and signed the treatment plan. | |||
11. A patient being treated for brain cancer received a therapeutic underdose of 12.3 percent. | |||
The licensee selected the wrong-year date in the treatment planning system, which | |||
resulted in the administration of 1052 cGy (rad) instead of the prescribed dose of 1200 cGy | |||
(rad). The licensee failed to recognize a computer warning that the entered treatment date | |||
differed from the system date. | |||
12. A patient received treatment to an unintended area of his brain, resulting in a dose of 500 | |||
cGy (rad) being delivered 1 to 5 cm (0.4 to 2 inches) from the intended location. An | |||
error in treatment geometry occurred because licensee staff members transposed the | |||
Y and Z coordinates. | |||
Attachment 1 13. A patient received treatment to an unintended area of his brain in excess of 1000 cGy | |||
(rad). The treatment plan that was developed indicated a single exposure of 1600 cGy | |||
(rad) to a brain lesion. One of the seven parameter settings of the gamma knife, the "left | |||
Y" coordinate, was erroneously set, resulting in a 5-millimeter (0.2 inch) translocation of the | |||
treatment volume. This event was caused by one member of the treatment team setting | |||
an initial erroneous coordinate setting, and by another member of the treatment team | |||
failing to independently verify the coordinate setting. | |||
14. A patient received a therapeutic overdose to the intended part of his brain. The dose was | |||
11 percent greater than the prescribed dose. The authorized user failed to enter the | |||
correct exposure time in the treatment-planning software system, and the exposure time | |||
from the previous treatment fraction was used. | |||
15. A patient received treatment to an unintended area of his brain, resulting in a dose of 460 | |||
cGy (rad) being delivered 11-millimeter (0.43 inches) from the intended location. The | |||
radiosurgery treatment prescribed three administrations of 1200 cGy (rad) each to a tumor | |||
volume. When the licensee started setting up the coordinates for the second | |||
administration, it was discovered that the Y and Z coordinates had been transposed on the | |||
first administration. The event was caused because the licensee had not checked the | |||
coordinates of the patients head frame against those required by the written treatment | |||
plan prior to the first treatment administration. | |||
Attachment 2 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED | |||
NMSS INFORMATION NOTICES | |||
_____________________________________________________________________________________ | |||
Information Date of | |||
Notice No. Subject Issuance Issued to | |||
_____________________________________________________________________________________ | |||
2000-19 Implementation of Human Use 12/05/2000 All medical use licensees | |||
Research Protocols Involving | |||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory | |||
Commission Regulated | |||
Materials | |||
2000-18 Substandard Material Supplied 11/29/2000 All 10 CFR Part 50 licensees and | |||
by Chicago Bullet Proof applicants | |||
Systems All category 1 fuel facilities | |||
All 10 CFR Part 72 licensees and | |||
applicants | |||
2000-16 Potential Hazards Due to 10/5/2000 All licensees that process | |||
Volatilization of Radionuclides unsealed byproduct material | |||
2000-15 Recent Events Resulting in 9/29/2000 All radiography licensees | |||
Whole Body Exposures | |||
Exceeding Regulatory Limits | |||
2000-12 Potential Degradation of 9/21/2000 All holders of licenses for nuclear | |||
Firefighter Primary Protective power, research, and test | |||
Garments reactors and fuel cycle facilities | |||
2000-11 Licensee Responsibility for 8/7/2000 All U.S. NRC 10 CFR Part 50 and | |||
Quality Assurance Oversight of Part 72 licensees, and Part 72 Contractor Activities Regarding Certificate of Compliance holders | |||
Fabrication and Use of Spent | |||
Fuel Storage Cask Systems | |||
2000-10 Recent Events Resulting in 7/18/2000 All material licensees who | |||
Extremity Exposures prepare or use unsealed | |||
Exceeding Regulatory Limits radioactive materials, radio- pharmaceuticals, or sealed | |||
sources for medical use or for | |||
research and development | |||
2000-07 National Institute for 4/10/2000 All holders of operating licenses | |||
Occupational Safety and for nuclear power reactors, non- Health Respirator User Notice: power reactors, and all fuel cycle | |||
Special Precautions for Using and material licensees required to | |||
Certain Self-Contained have an NRC approved | |||
Breathing Apparatus Air emergency plan | |||
Cylinders | |||
Attachment 3 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED | |||
NRC INFORMATION NOTICES | |||
_____________________________________________________________________________________ | |||
Information Date of | |||
Notice No. Subject Issuance Issued to | |||
______________________________________________________________________________________ | |||
2000-21 Detached Check Valve Disc 12/15/2000 All holders of OL for nuclear | |||
Not Detected by Use of power reactors except those who | |||
Acoustic and Magnetic have ceased operations and have | |||
Nonintrusive Test Techniques certified that fuel has been | |||
permanently removed from the | |||
reactor | |||
2000-20 Potential Loss of Redundant 12/11/2000 All holders of operating licenses | |||
Safety Related Equipment Due or construction permits for nuclear | |||
to Lack of a High-Energy Line power reactors | |||
Break Barrier | |||
2000-19 Implementation of Human Use 12/05/2000 All medical use licensees | |||
Research Protocols Involving | |||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory | |||
Commission Regulated | |||
Materials | |||
2000-18 Substandard Material Supplied 11/29/2000 All 10 CFR Part 50 licensees and | |||
by Chicago Bullet Proof applicants. All category 1 fuel | |||
Systems facilities. All 10 CFR Part 72 licensees and applicants | |||
2000-17 S1 Crack In Weld Area of Reactor 11/16/2000 All holders of OL for nuclear | |||
Coolant System Hot Leg Piping power reactors except those who | |||
At V.C. Summer have ceased operations and have | |||
certified that fuel has been | |||
permanently removed from the | |||
reactor vessel | |||
2000-17 Crack In Weld Area of Reactor 10/18/2000 All holders of OL for nuclear | |||
Coolant System Hot Leg Piping power reactors except those who | |||
At V.C. Summer have ceased operations and have | |||
certified that fuel has been | |||
permanently removed from the | |||
reactor vessel | |||
2000-16 Potential Hazards Due to 10/5/2000 All NRC licensees that process | |||
Volatilization of Radionuclides unsealed byproduct material | |||
______________________________________________________________________________________ | |||
OL = Operating License | |||
CP = Construction Permit}} | |||
{{Information notice-Nav}} | {{Information notice-Nav}} |
Latest revision as of 06:10, 24 November 2019
ML003761619 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Issue date: | 12/18/2000 |
From: | Cool D NRC/NMSS/IMNS |
To: | |
Torres, R, NMSS/IMNS, 415-8112 | |
References | |
IN-00-022 | |
Download: ML003761619 (7) | |
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 18, 2000
NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2000- 22: MEDICAL MISADMINISTRATIONS CAUSED BY
HUMAN ERRORS INVOLVING GAMMA
STEREOTACTIC RADIOSURGERY
(GAMMA KNIFE)
Addressees
All medical licensees authorized to conduct gamma stereotactic radiosurgery treatments.
Purpose
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information notice (IN) to
remind addressees of the importance of following written directives and treatment planning
procedures, and the need to pay attention to detail during preparation and administration of
gamma stereotactic radiosurgery. It is expected that recipients will review the information for
applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar problems.
However, suggestions contained in this IN are not new NRC requirements; therefore, no
specific action nor written response is required.
Description of Circumstances
NRC has become aware of 16 medical misadministrations, involving gamma stereotactic
radiosurgery, that have occurred during the past few years. Fifteen of these 16 misadministrations were attributed to human error, especially while entering data into a
computer treatment program and during the verification of patient coordinate settings. The
descriptions of the 15 misadministrations are summarized in Attachment 1.
Discussion:
The most common reported human error is the transposition of coordinate settings, mainly the
Y and Z coordinates. Other human errors are the selection of incorrect parameters such as
treatment sites, doses, and exposure times, and failure to follow established procedures.
Licensees have adopted the following corrective actions to prevent recurrence
of misadministrations:
1. A licensee requires two independent checks of the X, Y and Z coordinate settings before
each exposure, instead of one independent check, to reduce the transposition of
coordinates. In a single check, the coordinates are called out and person A sets the
coordinates, then Person B checks them against the written treatment plan. In a double
check, person A sets the coordinates, then Persons B and C independently check them
against the written treatment plan.
2. Another licensee requires a minimum of three staff members to set the X, Y, and Z
coordinates on the stereotactic frame to reduce the probability of transposition errors.
Treatment is administered only after the three staff members concur on the
coordinate settings.
3. A licensee limits the conversations in the treatment room to only those required for the
treatment of the patient, and restricts telephone calls in the treatment control area. These
actions reduce distractions to members of the treatment team.
4. A licensee requires the neurosurgeon, the radiation oncologist, and the medical physicist to
verify the treatment plan before each procedure. The neurosurgeon and either the
radiation physicist or the radiation oncologist has to be physically present during the
treatment. This oversight improves procedure adherence and attention to detail.
5. A licensee requires marking each page of the patient treatment plan with a unique name
and time stamp that the radiation oncologist or medical physicist has to initial before
delivery of the radiosurgery treatment. This prevents the transposition of a patient
treatment sheet from one medical file to another among patients receiving the same type
of treatment on the same day.
The medical physicist participation in the entire treatment-planning process is important, especially during the pretreatment review of the treatment plan. Neurosurgeon and radiation
oncologist collaboration at critical points in the process, such as dose selection, approval of the
written plan, and initiation of the treatment, is also essential. Licensees are reminded that
10 CFR 35.32(a)(1) requires that written directives be prepared before administration of gamma
sterotactic radiosurgery. Subsections 35.32(a)(3) and (4) require that final treatment plans and
related calculations, and each administration, are in accord with the respective written
directives. It is important that written directives and procedures are kept up to date and provide
adequate information. It is also important that management place a high value on staff
following all procedures and directives; that all staff are adequately trained; and that training
programs are effective in relaying necessary information. In all the cases listed in
Attachment 1, written directives and procedures were in place. However, a lack of attention to
detail, failure to adhere to the procedures and directives, or a failure to perform adequate, independent verification of treatment plans, patient identities, and treatment doses, contributed
to misadministrations. This information notice requires no specific action nor written response. If you have any
questions about the information in this notice, please contact the technical contact listed below
or the appropriate NRC regional office.
/RA/
Donald A. Cool, Director
Division of Industrial and
Medical Nuclear Safety
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Technical Contact:
Roberto J. Torres, NMSS
(301) 415-8112 E-mail: rjt@nrc.gov
Attachments:
1. Description of event circumstances
2. List of Recently Issued NMSS Information Notices
3. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices This information notice requires no specific action nor written response. If you have any
questions about the information in this notice, please contact the technical contact listed below
or the appropriate NRC regional office.
/RA/
Donald A. Cool, Director
Division of Industrial and
Medical Nuclear Safety
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Technical Contact:
Roberto J. Torres, NMSS
(301) 415-8112 E-mail: rjt@nrc.gov
Attachments:
1. Description of event circumstances
2. List of Recently Issued NMSS Information Notices
3. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices
DOCUMENT NAME: ML003761619 OFFICE MSIB C Editor N MSIB N MSIB MSIB N IMNS N
NAME RTorres/RA/ EKraus/fax FBrown/RA/ JHickey/RA/ CTrottier/RA/ DCool/RA/
DATE 9/29/00 10/05/00 10/22/00 10/25/00 12/11/00 12/11/00
& 12/4/00 & 12/01/00 & 12/6/00 & 12/6/00
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Attachment 1 DESCRIPTION OF EVENT CIRCUMSTANCES
1. A patient being treated for brain lesions was undergoing the fourth of five planned
treatments, when a treatment site received an unintended repeat dose because of
inattention to detail. The treatment site was supposed to receive 1200 centiGray (cGy)
(rad), but instead received 2400 cGy (rad).
2. A patient being treated for pituitary adenoma received a dose of 1260 cGy (rad) to an
unintended site of his frontal lobe. The unintended site was approximately 4.2 centimeters
(cm) (1.65 inches) away from the intended site. The treatment planning for the patient was
uneventful. A nurse and the medical physicist checked the adjustments on the device
stereotactic frame for accuracy. Nonetheless, when staff members started to set up the
patient for a second administration, they realized the Y and Z coordinates on the
stereotactic frame were transposed on the previous treatment.
3. A gamma knife unit was set up incorrectly and delivered a dose to the wrong site on a
patients brain. A radiosurgery treatment was to be delivered to Patient As left trigeminal
nerve. On that same date, Patient B was also scheduled to receive the same treatment as
Patient A. During the signature phase of treatment plan approval, Patient Bs dose delivery
treatment sheet was inadvertently transposed with that of Patient A. Therefore, Patient A
was treated with the radiosurgery parameters that were intended for Patient B. This
resulted in a dose of 8000 cGy (rad) delivered to the wrong treatment site. The actual dose
received by the intended treatment site was 20 cGy (rad).
4. A patient being treated for an arteriovenous malformation, in the left part of his brain, received treatment to the right side of his brain. During the treatment planning process, the computer software refused several times to accept the correct orientation (as viewed
by the planning team) of the patients image. Eventually, the neurosurgeon and the
medical physicist instructed the computer system to accept the image they believed to be
correct. After initiating the treatment, the physicist noticed that the X coordinates indicated
a definite right-side target and stopped the treatment. The physicist and the neurosurgeon
were unaware that a different angiography room had been used to acquire the patients X-
ray images during the quality assurance (QA) runs. QA tests had been performed in what
the physicist believed to be the only angiographic suite. This room was equipped in such a
way that the lateral X-ray tube could only be on the patients right side, with the patient in a
supine position. The actual angiographs were performed in another room where the tube
focus was on the patients left side.
5. A patient received a dose of 3000 cGy (rad) to the intended site of his brain, instead of the
prescribed dose of 2300 cGy (rad). This event was caused because the licensee did not
follow the treatment plan and used an incorrect collimator helmet.
Attachment 1 6. A patient received a dose 54.5 percent below the intended dose. The prescribed dose was
2200 cGy (rad) and the patient received a dose of 1000 cGy (rad). The treatment
physician failed to enter the prescribed dose into the treatment planning system. This
resulted in the systems default value (1000 cGy) (rad) being used for the treatment. The
error was missed by all three team members involved in the treatment planning.
7. A patient received a total treatment dose that differed from the prescribed dose by more
than 10 percent. As the third treatment site was being prepared for treatment
administration, the licensee discovered that the patients position would have to be
changed from supine to prone, to physically achieve the appropriate coordinates. When
replanning the third area of treatment, the neurosurgeon and the medical physicist realized
the Y and Z coordinates were transposed during the previous treatment.
8. A patient was prescribed a treatment of 9000 cGy (rad) to the left trigeminal nerve of his
brain. However, the treatment was actually administered to the right trigeminal nerve. The
medical physicist had inadvertedly prepared a treatment plan for the wrong side of the
patients head and the radiation oncologist (authorized user) signed the treatment plan
without properly verifying the neurosurgeons request identifying the correct site.
9. A patient received treatment to an unintended area of his brain. The treatment plan called
for three doses of radiation. The first treatment was set up and delivered to the patient.
When the coordinates for the second treatment were set, it was discovered that the Y and
Z coordinates had been transposed on the first treatment. The prescribed dose for the first
treatment was 1100 cGy (rad), but 50 cGy (rad) were administered. The licensee indicated
that possible contributing factors to this event were: a) the reduction to two staff members, instead of the usual three, for setting up the patient; and b) the Z coordinate was set before
attaching the Z bar to the stereotactic frame.
10. A patient received a dose of 2600 cGy (rad) to the first of three lesions, instead of the
prescribed dose of 1600 cGy (rad). During preparation of the treatment plan for the
second lesion, the settings for the first treatment site were unintentionally used. This
resulted in two treatments to the first lesion. The error was not identified, even though the
neurosurgeon and the radiation oncologist reviewed and signed the treatment plan.
11. A patient being treated for brain cancer received a therapeutic underdose of 12.3 percent.
The licensee selected the wrong-year date in the treatment planning system, which
resulted in the administration of 1052 cGy (rad) instead of the prescribed dose of 1200 cGy
(rad). The licensee failed to recognize a computer warning that the entered treatment date
differed from the system date.
12. A patient received treatment to an unintended area of his brain, resulting in a dose of 500
cGy (rad) being delivered 1 to 5 cm (0.4 to 2 inches) from the intended location. An
error in treatment geometry occurred because licensee staff members transposed the
Y and Z coordinates.
Attachment 1 13. A patient received treatment to an unintended area of his brain in excess of 1000 cGy
(rad). The treatment plan that was developed indicated a single exposure of 1600 cGy
(rad) to a brain lesion. One of the seven parameter settings of the gamma knife, the "left
Y" coordinate, was erroneously set, resulting in a 5-millimeter (0.2 inch) translocation of the
treatment volume. This event was caused by one member of the treatment team setting
an initial erroneous coordinate setting, and by another member of the treatment team
failing to independently verify the coordinate setting.
14. A patient received a therapeutic overdose to the intended part of his brain. The dose was
11 percent greater than the prescribed dose. The authorized user failed to enter the
correct exposure time in the treatment-planning software system, and the exposure time
from the previous treatment fraction was used.
15. A patient received treatment to an unintended area of his brain, resulting in a dose of 460
cGy (rad) being delivered 11-millimeter (0.43 inches) from the intended location. The
radiosurgery treatment prescribed three administrations of 1200 cGy (rad) each to a tumor
volume. When the licensee started setting up the coordinates for the second
administration, it was discovered that the Y and Z coordinates had been transposed on the
first administration. The event was caused because the licensee had not checked the
coordinates of the patients head frame against those required by the written treatment
plan prior to the first treatment administration.
Attachment 2 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED
NMSS INFORMATION NOTICES
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Information Date of
Notice No. Subject Issuance Issued to
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2000-19 Implementation of Human Use 12/05/2000 All medical use licensees
Research Protocols Involving
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Regulated
Materials
2000-18 Substandard Material Supplied 11/29/2000 All 10 CFR Part 50 licensees and
by Chicago Bullet Proof applicants
Systems All category 1 fuel facilities
All 10 CFR Part 72 licensees and
applicants
2000-16 Potential Hazards Due to 10/5/2000 All licensees that process
Volatilization of Radionuclides unsealed byproduct material
2000-15 Recent Events Resulting in 9/29/2000 All radiography licensees
Whole Body Exposures
Exceeding Regulatory Limits
2000-12 Potential Degradation of 9/21/2000 All holders of licenses for nuclear
Firefighter Primary Protective power, research, and test
Garments reactors and fuel cycle facilities
2000-11 Licensee Responsibility for 8/7/2000 All U.S. NRC 10 CFR Part 50 and
Quality Assurance Oversight of Part 72 licensees, and Part 72 Contractor Activities Regarding Certificate of Compliance holders
Fabrication and Use of Spent
Fuel Storage Cask Systems
2000-10 Recent Events Resulting in 7/18/2000 All material licensees who
Extremity Exposures prepare or use unsealed
Exceeding Regulatory Limits radioactive materials, radio- pharmaceuticals, or sealed
sources for medical use or for
research and development
2000-07 National Institute for 4/10/2000 All holders of operating licenses
Occupational Safety and for nuclear power reactors, non- Health Respirator User Notice: power reactors, and all fuel cycle
Special Precautions for Using and material licensees required to
Certain Self-Contained have an NRC approved
Breathing Apparatus Air emergency plan
Cylinders
Attachment 3 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED
NRC INFORMATION NOTICES
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Information Date of
Notice No. Subject Issuance Issued to
______________________________________________________________________________________
2000-21 Detached Check Valve Disc 12/15/2000 All holders of OL for nuclear
Not Detected by Use of power reactors except those who
Acoustic and Magnetic have ceased operations and have
Nonintrusive Test Techniques certified that fuel has been
permanently removed from the
reactor
2000-20 Potential Loss of Redundant 12/11/2000 All holders of operating licenses
Safety Related Equipment Due or construction permits for nuclear
to Lack of a High-Energy Line power reactors
Break Barrier
2000-19 Implementation of Human Use 12/05/2000 All medical use licensees
Research Protocols Involving
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Regulated
Materials
2000-18 Substandard Material Supplied 11/29/2000 All 10 CFR Part 50 licensees and
by Chicago Bullet Proof applicants. All category 1 fuel
Systems facilities. All 10 CFR Part 72 licensees and applicants
2000-17 S1 Crack In Weld Area of Reactor 11/16/2000 All holders of OL for nuclear
Coolant System Hot Leg Piping power reactors except those who
At V.C. Summer have ceased operations and have
certified that fuel has been
permanently removed from the
reactor vessel
2000-17 Crack In Weld Area of Reactor 10/18/2000 All holders of OL for nuclear
Coolant System Hot Leg Piping power reactors except those who
At V.C. Summer have ceased operations and have
certified that fuel has been
permanently removed from the
reactor vessel
2000-16 Potential Hazards Due to 10/5/2000 All NRC licensees that process
Volatilization of Radionuclides unsealed byproduct material
______________________________________________________________________________________
OL = Operating License
CP = Construction Permit