To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Governance structures in radiotherapy are central to ensuring patient safety, yet significant variation exists in how errors are reported, analysed and mitigated globally. This literature review evaluates current international approaches to radiotherapy error governance, highlighting barriers to consistent reporting and opportunities for system-wide improvement.
Methods:
A structured search of peer-reviewed literature and policy documents was undertaken using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. The search yielded 42 relevant articles, reviewed for themes relating to governance frameworks, safety culture, incident reporting systems and technology’s role in error reduction.
Results:
Findings reveal inconsistent adoption of Safety I and Safety II models, underreporting due to blame culture, and limited integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into governance frameworks. Successful strategies included pre-treatment peer review, multidisciplinary safety boards and AI-assisted risk management tools. Despite advancements, gaps persist in standardising incident definitions, fostering transparency and promoting a just culture.
Conclusion:
The review suggests the need for international alignment on governance practices, wider integration of AI and proactive learning from near misses. Radiographers and radiation oncology teams are urged to engage in shaping safety governance through open reporting, system design and education. Implications for practice: Improved governance not only reduces harm but also supports continuous quality improvement in radiotherapy services.
We have seen in Chapter 9 that we have many avenues to improve medication safety in anesthesia and the perioperative period, with considerable evidence and expert consensus to support them. However, human nature, just as it leads to errors, also often drives resistance to implementing safety interventions. Complicating our efforts to improve safety are safety paradoxes that, although would seem to improve safety, actually may work against safety. Achieving improved patient safety requires a deep understanding of not just how things go wrong when error-prone human beings work within complex systems but also why changes that would have a high probability of reducing the risk of errors are so often resisted. Needed changes can be resisted by individual physicians and by entire leadership of a large healthcare system. We return to the concept of violations, and emphasize that failure to hold violators accountable will effectively undermine safety efforts. Finally, an effort to understand why we do not change is absolutely imperative, as our continued refusal to change to safer methods continues to imperil our patients.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.