Developing the foundations of a cognition-based human reliability analysis model via mapping task types and performance-influencing factors: Application to radiotherapy
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2018
Developing the foundations of a cognition-based human reliability analysis model via mapping task types and performance-influencing factors: Application to radiotherapy
Most human reliability analysis methods have been developed for nuclear power plant applications; this challenges the application of the available techniques to other domains. Indeed, for application to a specific domain, a human reliability analysis method should address the relevant tasks and performance conditions. The aim of this article is to propose a methodology to develop a generic task type–performance-influencing factor structure, specific for application to a domain of interest and directly linked to an underlying cognitive framework of literature. The structure provides the foundation of a human reliability analysis method built on the generic task type concept; it identifies the sector-specific performance-influencing factor effects on the failure probability that the method needs to represent and quantify for each generic task type. The methodology is intended to support a systematic and traceable process to develop the generic task type–performance-influencing factor structure, to ease the review of the process and of its results and, in case, identify and implement changes to the structure. The proposed methodology is applied to the radiotherapy domain allowing the development of sector-specific taxonomies of representative critical tasks, their failure modes, underlying cognitive failure mechanism, and influencing performance-influencing factors. This is part of a broader activity carried out by the Risk and Human Reliability Group at the Paul Scherrer Institute of Switzerland to develop a human reliability analysis method, specific for the radiotherapy domain. The activity is conducted in close cooperation with Paul Scherrer Institute’s Center for Proton Therapy, where a first application of the method is foreseen.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Technical basis and implementation guidelines for A Technique for Human Error Analysis (ATHEANA). Technical report NUREG-1624, rev 1, May2000. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
2.
MoslehA.PRA: a perspective on strengths, current limitations, and possible improvements. Nucl Eng Technol2014; 46(1): 1–10.
3.
JohansonGJonssonSBladhKet al. Evaluation of existing applications and guidance on methods for HRA—EXAM-HRA. Report for Nordic nuclear safety research, NKS-305, March2014. Roskilde: Nordic Nuclear Safety Research.
4.
ChandlerFTChangYHMoslehAet al. Human reliability analysis methods selection guidance for NASA. Technical report, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, July2006.
5.
SeljelidJHaugenSSkletSet al. Operational risk analysis—total analysis of physical and non-physical barriers. BORA handbook—Rev.00, report no. 200254-08, 29June2007.
6.
SkogdalenJEVinnemJE.Quantitative risk analysis offshore—human and organizational factors. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2011; 96: 468–479.
7.
StamatelatosMDezfuliH.Probabilistic risk assessment procedures guide for NASA managers and practitioners. Technical report for National Aeronautics and Space Administration, report no. NASA/SP-2011-3421, 2nd ed., December2011. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
8.
LaumannKOienKTaylorCet al. Analysis of human actions as barriers in major accidents in the petroleum industry, applicability of human reliability analysis methods. In: Proceedings of the probabilistic safety assessment and management (ed SmithCPaulosT), Honolulu, HI, 22–27 June 2014. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
9.
RasmussenMStandalMILaumannK.Task complexity as a performance shaping factor: a review and recommendations in Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) adaption. Safety Sci2015; 76: 228–238.
10.
WilliamsJC. HEART—a proposed method for assessing and reducing human error. In: Proceedings of the 9th advances in reliability technology symposium, University of Bradford, Bradford, 2–4 April 1986. National Center for Systems Reliability.
11.
WilliamsJC.HEART—a proposed method for achieving high reliability in process operation by means of human factors engineering technology. Safety and Reliability2015; 35(3): 5–25.
12.
KirwanB.A guide to practical human reliability assessment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1994.
13.
KirwanB.The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques—THERP, HEART and JHEDI: part 1—technique descriptions and validation issues. Appl Ergon1996; 27(6): 359–373.
14.
KirwanBGibsonHWKennedyRet al. Nuclear action reliability assessment (NARA): a data-based HRA tool. In: Proceedings of the probability safety assessment and management (ed SpitzerCSchmockerUDangVN), Berlin, 14–18 June 2004, pp.1206–1211. London: Springer.
15.
GibsonHWMillsASmithSet al. Railway action reliability assessment, a railway-specific approach to human error quantification. In: Proceedings of the international rail human factors conference, rail human factors supporting reliability, safety and cost reduction (ed DadashiNScottAWilsonJRet al.), London, 5–7 March 2013, pp.671–676. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group.
16.
KirwanBGibsonWH.CARA: a human reliability assessment tool for air traffic safety management—technical basis and preliminary architecture. In: RedmillFAndersonT (eds) The safety of systems. London: Springer, 2007, pp.197–214.
17.
WhaleyAMXingJBoringRLet al. Cognitive basis for human reliability analysis. Technical report NUREG-2114, January2016. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
18.
ParkJ.Scrutinizing inter-relations between performance influencing factors and the performance of human operators pertaining to the emergency tasks of nuclear power plant—an explanatory study. Ann Nucl Energy2011; 38(11): 2521–2532.
19.
GrothKGMoslehA.A data-informed PIF hierarchy for model-based Human Reliability Analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2012; 108: 154–174.
20.
ForesterJDangVNByeAet al. The international HRA empirical study: lessons learned from comparing HRA methods predictions to HAMMLAB simulator data. Technical report NUREG-2127, August2014. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
21.
ChangYJBleyDCriscioneLet al. The SACADA database for human reliability and human performance. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2014; 125: 117–133.
22.
EkanemNJMoslehAShenS-H.Phoenix—a model-based Human reliability analysis methodology: qualitative analysis procedure. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2016; 145: 301–315.
23.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Case studies in the application of probabilistic safety assessment techniques to radiation sources. Technical document for IAEA-TECDOC-1494, April2006. Vienna: IAEA.
NathRBiggsPJBovaFJet al. AAPM code of practice for radiotherapy accelerators. Report for the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Task group 45, AAPM report no. 47, September1994. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
27.
KleinEEHanleyJBayouthJet al. Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys2009; 36(9): 4197–4212.
28.
American College of Radiology. Practice guideline for radiation oncology. In: Technical standard for practice guidelines and technical standards. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2009.
29.
LeerJWHMcKenzieALScallietPet al. Practical guidelines for the implementation of a quality system in radiotherapy (Booklet no. 4). Report for European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), Physics for Clinical Radiotherapy, Brussels, 1998.
30.
HuqMSFraassBADunscombePBet al. A method for evaluating quality assurance needs in radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2008; 71(1 suppl.): 170–173.
31.
ThomadsenB.Critique of traditional quality assurance paradigm. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2008; 71(1 suppl.): S166–S169.
32.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Lessons learned from accidental exposures in radiotherapy. Safety report—IAEA-Series no. 17, February2000. Vienna: IAEA.
33.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Prevention of accidental exposures to patients undergoing radiation therapy. Report for International Commission on Radiological Protection, publication 86, vol. 30, no. 3, 2000. Ottawa, ON, Canada: International Commission on Radiological Protection.
34.
LopezPOCossetJ-MDunscombePet al. Preventing accidental exposures from new external beam radiation therapy technologies. Report for International Commission on Radiological Protection, publication no. 112, vol. 39, no. 4, 2009. Ottawa, ON, Canada: International Commission on Radiological Protection.
35.
YeungTKBortolottoKCosbySet al. Quality assurance in radiotherapy: evaluation of errors and incidents recorded over a 10 year period. Radiother Oncol2005; 74(3): 283–291.
36.
World Health Organization (WHO). Radiotherapy risk profile (Technical manual). Geneva: WHO, 2008.
37.
DerreumauxSEtardCHuetCet al. Lessons from recent accidents in radiation therapy in France. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2008; 131(1): 130–135.
38.
HuqMSFraassBADunscombePBet al. The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management. Med Phys2016; 43(7): 4209–4262.
39.
MarxDASlonimAD.Assessing patient safety risk before the injury occurs: an introduction to sociotechnical probabilistic risk modelling in health care. Qual Saf Health Care2003; 12(2 suppl.): ii33–ii38.
40.
EkaetteEULeeRCCookeDLet al. Risk analysis in radiation treatment: application of a new taxonomic structure. Radiother Oncol2006; 80(3): 282–287.
41.
EkaetteELeeRCCookeDLet al. Probabilistic fault tree analysis of a radiation treatment system. Risk Anal2007; 27(6): 1395–1410.
42.
GomesECDuarteJPFrutuoso eMelo PF.Human reliability modeling of radiotherapy procedures by Bayesian networks and expert opinion elicitation. Nucl Technol2016; 194(1): 73–96.
43.
VilaragutJJFerroRLozanoBet al. Results of probabilistic safety assessment to the cobalt-therapy process. Nucleus2004; 35(50): 47–52.
44.
VilaragutJJFerroRMartiMRet al. Probabilistic safety assessment of the radiotherapy treatment process with an electron linear accelerator for medical uses. In: Proceedings of the 12th international congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), Buenos Aires, Argentina, 19–24 October 2008. Marketing and Sales Unit, Publishing Section, International Atomic Energy Agency.
45.
ChadwickLFallonEF.Human reliability assessment of a critical nursing task in a radiotherapy treatment process. Appl Ergon2012; 43(1): 89–97.
46.
LyonsMAdamsSWoloshynowychMet al. Human reliability analysis in healthcare: a review of techniques. Int J Risk Saf Med2004; 16: 223–237.
47.
McLeodJNBaronJRiveraS. Human reliability analysis in cobalt-therapy process using an adapted ATHEANA prospective approach. In: Proceedings of the probability safety assessment and management (ed SpitzerCSchmockerUDangVN), Berlin, 14–18 June 2004. Springer
48.
TurraFVerbanoC.A human reliability analysis approach to clinical risk management: first steps towards a new methodology. In: Proceedings of the European safety and reliability conference (ed SjobergBMDAvenT), Stavanger, 25–27 June 2007, pp.209–217. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group.
49.
WreathallJBrownWSMilitelloLet al. A risk-informed approach to understanding human error in radiation therapy. Technical report NUREG-2170, June2017. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
50.
PandyaDPodofilliniLEmertFet al. A method for human reliability analysis in radiotherapy: identification and characterization of influencing factors. In: Proceedings of the European safety and reliability conference (ed PodofilliniLSudretBStojadinovicBet al.), Zurich, 7–10, September 2015. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group.
51.
SwainADGuttmannHE.Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. Final report NUREG/CR-1278, August1983. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
52.
GibsonHWBasraGKirwanB.Development of the CORE-DATA database. Safe Reliab1999; 19(1): 6–20.
53.
ForesterJLiaoHDangVNet al. The US HRA empirical study—assessment of HRA method predictions against operating crew performance on a US Nuclear Power Plant simulator. Technical report NUREG-2156, June2016. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
54.
EndsleyMR.Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors1995; 37(1): 32–64.
55.
EndsleyMR.The role of situation awareness in naturalistic decision making. In: ZsambokCEKleinG (eds) Naturalistic decision making. Dayton, OH: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1994, pp.269–284.
O’HaraJMHigginsJCBrownWSet al. Human factors considerations with respect to emerging technology in nuclear power plants. Technical report NUREG/CR-6947, October2008. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
58.
RothEM. Generic list of complicating situational factors, individual and team “macro-cognitive” performance problems, and unsafe actions. Internal project report prepared for the HRA data project, Office of Research, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 2010.
59.
PattersonESHoffmanRR.Visualization framework of macrocognition functions. Cogn Technol Work2012; 14(3): 221–227.
60.
RasmussenJDuncanKLeplatJ.New technology and human error. London; New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987.
61.
ReasonJT.Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
62.
HollnagelE.Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1988.
63.
FordEFong de Los SantosLPawlickiTet al. Consensus recommendations for incident learning database structures in radiation oncology. Med Phys2012; 39(12): 7272–7290.
64.
FraassBDoppkeKHuntMet al. American Association of Physicists in Medicine radiation therapy committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys1998; 25(10): 1773–1829.
VerheyLJ.Immobilization and positioning patients for radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol1995; 5(2): 100–114.
67.
DekkerS.Patient safety: a human factors approach. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2011.
68.
WilliamsJCBellJL.Consolidation of the error producing conditions used in the human error assessment and reduction technique (HEART). Safety and Reliability2016; 35(3): 26–76.
69.
KleinGAPhillipsJKRallELet al. A data-frame theory of sensemaking. In: Expertise out of context: proceedings of the 6th international conference on naturalistic decision making, Pensacola Beach, FL, 15–17 May 2003, pp.113–155. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
