Use of Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a tool to map the risks involved in a clinical study
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por eng |
Título da fonte: | Vigilância Sanitária em Debate |
Texto Completo: | https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/1024 |
Resumo: | Introduction: This study describes the application of the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a tool for risk management during clinical research to establish the treatment of patients simultaneously infected with HIV and tuberculosis. Objective: To demonstrate the importance of risk analysis associated with clinical trial protocols in safeguarding the participant and study data, and as a study’s quality standard. Method: Procedures demanded by the clinical protocol were detailed and then associated with failure modes based on the programmed visits of the participant to the study center. The failure modes were rated between 1 and 10 according to: Severity, Occurrence and Detectability, and the Risk Priority Number (RPN) was calculated by multiplying the three values. Results: In a panel of 25 procedures and 60 failure modes, 50% resulted in RPN > 120; six of which contained more than five failure modes. The highest risks were associated with the DOT strategy (RPN 294), blood collection (RPN 288), the Informed Consent Term (RPN 270) and participant data collection (RPN 240). Conclusions: The results demonstrate the importance of FMEA as a tool to assess risks in clinical studies, in line with the recommendations of international standardization organizations. |
id |
FIOCRUZ-9_2573ee08b88280c4c8524886c84033ae |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br:article/1024 |
network_acronym_str |
FIOCRUZ-9 |
network_name_str |
Vigilância Sanitária em Debate |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Use of Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a tool to map the risks involved in a clinical studyUso da Análise dos Modos de Falha e seus Efeitos (FMEA) como ferramenta para mapear os riscos em um estudo clínicoPesquisa ClínicaGerenciamento de RiscoFMEAClinical ResearchRisk ManagementFMEAIntroduction: This study describes the application of the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a tool for risk management during clinical research to establish the treatment of patients simultaneously infected with HIV and tuberculosis. Objective: To demonstrate the importance of risk analysis associated with clinical trial protocols in safeguarding the participant and study data, and as a study’s quality standard. Method: Procedures demanded by the clinical protocol were detailed and then associated with failure modes based on the programmed visits of the participant to the study center. The failure modes were rated between 1 and 10 according to: Severity, Occurrence and Detectability, and the Risk Priority Number (RPN) was calculated by multiplying the three values. Results: In a panel of 25 procedures and 60 failure modes, 50% resulted in RPN > 120; six of which contained more than five failure modes. The highest risks were associated with the DOT strategy (RPN 294), blood collection (RPN 288), the Informed Consent Term (RPN 270) and participant data collection (RPN 240). Conclusions: The results demonstrate the importance of FMEA as a tool to assess risks in clinical studies, in line with the recommendations of international standardization organizations.Introdução: O presente estudo descreve a aplicação da ferramenta de gerenciamento de riscos Análise de Modo e Efeito de Falha (Failure Mode Effects Analysis – FMEA) a uma pesquisa clínica que estabelecerá um tratamento de indivíduos simultaneamente infectados por HIV e tuberculose. Objetivo: Demonstrar a importância da análise de riscos associada aos protocolos de estudos clínicos na salvaguarda do participante e dos dados do estudo, e como padrão de qualidade do estudo. Método: Os procedimentos demandados na execução do protocolo clínico e os potenciais modos de falha a eles associados foram estipulados com base na programação de visitas do participante ao centro do estudo. Os modos de falha foram valorados entre 1 e 10 de acordo com: Gravidade, Ocorrência e Detectabilidade, calculando-se o Número de Prioridade de Risco (NPR) pela multiplicação dos três valores. Resultados: Num painel de 25 procedimentos e 60 modos de falha, 50% resultaram em NPR > 120; seis deles contendo mais de cinco modos de falha. Os maiores riscos foram associados à estratégia DOT (NPR 294), à coleta de sangue (NPR 288), ao Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido (NPR 270) e a coletas de dados do participante (NPR 240). Conclusões: Os resultados demonstraram a importância da FMEA como instrumento de avaliação de riscos em estudos clínicos, alinhando-se com recomendações de órgãos normalizadores internacionais.Instituto Nacional de Controle de Qualidade em Saúde2018-05-30info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion"Peer-reviewed article""Artículo revisado por pares""Artigo avaliado pelos pares"application/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/102410.22239/2317-269X.01024Health Surveillance under Debate: Society, Science & Technology ; Vol. 6 No. 2 (2018): May; 7-17Vigilancia en Salud en Debate: Sociedad, Ciencia y Tecnología; Vol. 6 Núm. 2 (2018): Puede; 7-17Vigil Sanit Debate, Rio de Janeiro; v. 6 n. 2 (2018): Maio; 7-172317-269Xreponame:Vigilância Sanitária em Debateinstname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)instacron:FIOCRUZporenghttps://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/1024/445https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/1024/1023Copyright (c) 2018 Vigilância Sanitária em Debate: Sociedade, Ciência & Tecnologia (Health Surveillance under Debate: Society, Science & Technology) – Visa em Debatehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessde Oliveira, Monique GurgelSiani, Antonio CarlosQuental, Cristiane MachadoPorto, Tiago FilgueirasRolla, Valeria Cavalcanti2023-06-27T15:10:49Zoai:ojs.visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br:article/1024Revistahttps://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebatePUBhttps://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/oaiincqs.visaemdebate@fiocruz.br || gisele.neves@fiocruz.br2317-269X2317-269Xopendoar:2023-06-27T15:10:49Vigilância Sanitária em Debate - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Use of Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a tool to map the risks involved in a clinical study Uso da Análise dos Modos de Falha e seus Efeitos (FMEA) como ferramenta para mapear os riscos em um estudo clínico |
title |
Use of Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a tool to map the risks involved in a clinical study |
spellingShingle |
Use of Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a tool to map the risks involved in a clinical study de Oliveira, Monique Gurgel Pesquisa Clínica Gerenciamento de Risco FMEA Clinical Research Risk Management FMEA |
title_short |
Use of Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a tool to map the risks involved in a clinical study |
title_full |
Use of Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a tool to map the risks involved in a clinical study |
title_fullStr |
Use of Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a tool to map the risks involved in a clinical study |
title_full_unstemmed |
Use of Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a tool to map the risks involved in a clinical study |
title_sort |
Use of Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a tool to map the risks involved in a clinical study |
author |
de Oliveira, Monique Gurgel |
author_facet |
de Oliveira, Monique Gurgel Siani, Antonio Carlos Quental, Cristiane Machado Porto, Tiago Filgueiras Rolla, Valeria Cavalcanti |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Siani, Antonio Carlos Quental, Cristiane Machado Porto, Tiago Filgueiras Rolla, Valeria Cavalcanti |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
de Oliveira, Monique Gurgel Siani, Antonio Carlos Quental, Cristiane Machado Porto, Tiago Filgueiras Rolla, Valeria Cavalcanti |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Pesquisa Clínica Gerenciamento de Risco FMEA Clinical Research Risk Management FMEA |
topic |
Pesquisa Clínica Gerenciamento de Risco FMEA Clinical Research Risk Management FMEA |
description |
Introduction: This study describes the application of the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a tool for risk management during clinical research to establish the treatment of patients simultaneously infected with HIV and tuberculosis. Objective: To demonstrate the importance of risk analysis associated with clinical trial protocols in safeguarding the participant and study data, and as a study’s quality standard. Method: Procedures demanded by the clinical protocol were detailed and then associated with failure modes based on the programmed visits of the participant to the study center. The failure modes were rated between 1 and 10 according to: Severity, Occurrence and Detectability, and the Risk Priority Number (RPN) was calculated by multiplying the three values. Results: In a panel of 25 procedures and 60 failure modes, 50% resulted in RPN > 120; six of which contained more than five failure modes. The highest risks were associated with the DOT strategy (RPN 294), blood collection (RPN 288), the Informed Consent Term (RPN 270) and participant data collection (RPN 240). Conclusions: The results demonstrate the importance of FMEA as a tool to assess risks in clinical studies, in line with the recommendations of international standardization organizations. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-05-30 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion "Peer-reviewed article" "Artículo revisado por pares" "Artigo avaliado pelos pares" |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/1024 10.22239/2317-269X.01024 |
url |
https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/1024 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.22239/2317-269X.01024 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por eng |
language |
por eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/1024/445 https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/1024/1023 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Nacional de Controle de Qualidade em Saúde |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Nacional de Controle de Qualidade em Saúde |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Health Surveillance under Debate: Society, Science & Technology ; Vol. 6 No. 2 (2018): May; 7-17 Vigilancia en Salud en Debate: Sociedad, Ciencia y Tecnología; Vol. 6 Núm. 2 (2018): Puede; 7-17 Vigil Sanit Debate, Rio de Janeiro; v. 6 n. 2 (2018): Maio; 7-17 2317-269X reponame:Vigilância Sanitária em Debate instname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) instacron:FIOCRUZ |
instname_str |
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
instacron_str |
FIOCRUZ |
institution |
FIOCRUZ |
reponame_str |
Vigilância Sanitária em Debate |
collection |
Vigilância Sanitária em Debate |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Vigilância Sanitária em Debate - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
incqs.visaemdebate@fiocruz.br || gisele.neves@fiocruz.br |
_version_ |
1797042044840968192 |