Validation of a graphic protocol for evaluating patient safety in teletherapy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2176-7262.rmrp.2025.213333Keywords:
Patient safety, Teletherapy, Radiotherapy, Protocols, Validation studyAbstract
Objective: To construct and validate in content and appearance a graphic protocol and checklist to evaluate safe care in teletherapy. Method: Methodological study, carried out between March and May 2022, in three stages: construction, validation and application of the graphic protocol and checklist to evaluate safe care in teletherapy. The construction was based on national and international guidelines and data from a scoping review, being elaborated from the structure, process and outcome components of Donabedian and the reference of Pasquali. Content and appearance validation was performed using the Delphi technique (Content Validation Coefficient >80%). After validation, the constructs were applied in a teletherapy service in Minas Gerais by two evaluators. These results were analyzed using the care classification proposed by the graphic protocol. The interobserver reliability was given by the Kappa coefficient. Results: The graphic protocol and checklist were considered valid in content and appearance (>90%) after two rounds of Delphi. During the application of the graphic protocol and checklist in the teletherapy service, it was observed that the structure and result elements are safe, and the process element is partially safe. Still in this process, the evaluators observed that the constructs are suitable for use, with no need for adjustments at the time of application. Conclusion: The graphic protocol and checklist for evaluating safe care in teletherapy were considered valid. Its use will enable the recognition of structural and procedural elements in the service, encouraging actions to improve patient safety according to the local reality.
Downloads
References
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 2022 nov 12];71(3):209–249. Disponível em: https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21660.
Erdmann F, Frederiksen LE, Bonaventure A, Mader L, Hasle H, Robison LL et al. Childhood cancer: Survival, treatment modalities, late effects and improvements over time. Cancer epidemiology. [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 2022 nov 12];71(Pt B):101733. Disponível em: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877782120300679?via%3Dihub.
Gomes AT, Alves KY, Bezerril MS, Rodrigues CC, Ferreira Júnior MA, Santos VE. Validação de protocolos gráficos para avaliação da segurança do paciente politraumatizado. Acta Paul Enferm. [Internet]. 2018 [acesso 2022 nov 12];31(5):504-17. Disponível em: https://acta-ape.org/wp-content/uploads/articles_xml/1982-0194-ape-31-05-0504/1982-0194-ape-31-05-0504.x42714.pdf.
World Health Organization. Global patient safety action plan 2021–2030: towards eliminating avoidable harm in health care. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2021:1-108.
Malicki J, Bly R, Bulot M, Godet JL, Jahnen A, Krengli M et al. Patient safety in external beam radiotherapy, results of the ACCIRAD project: Recommendations for radiotherapy institutions and national authorities on assessing risks and analysing adverse error-events and near misses. Radiology and Oncology. [Internet]. 2018 [acesso 2022 nov 12];127(2):164–170. Disponível em: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167-8140(18)30194-4.
American Society for Radiation Oncology. Safety is no accident: a framework for quality radiation oncology care. 2019:1-57.
Salvador CS, Borges LM, Dorow PF, Felipe DS, Rodrigues PM, Pereira JG et al. Riscos que comprometem a segurança do paciente no tratamento de teleterapia conformacional. Braz. J. Rad. Sci. [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 2022 nov 12];08(01):01-20. Disponível em: https://www.bjrs.org.br/revista/index.php/REVISTA/article/view/1150.
Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1966. The Milbank quarterly. [Internet]. 2005 [acesso 2022 nov 12];83(4):691–729. Disponível em: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690293/pdf/milq0083-0397.pdf.
Pasquali L. Instrumentação psicológica: fundamentos e práticas. Porto Alegre: Artmed. 2010:1-560.
Fonseca DF, Oliveira PP, Camargos NB, Santos VEP, Schlosser TCM, Rodrigues AB et al. Segurança do paciente em teleterapia: scoping review. RSD. [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 2022 nov 12];11(3):1-15. Disponível em: https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/26935/29083.
Santos VEP et al. Construção e validação de protocolos gráficos para o cuidado seguro em saúde em diferentes contextos. Viviane Euzébia Pereira Santos (Org.). 2020;1-230p. Disponível em: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qUSTAmt4U-Q1bUoK1c784BwzN6aVbKxQ/view.
Pimenta CAM et al. Guia para construção de protocolos assistenciais de enfermagem. COREN-SP, São Paulo, 2015;1-50.
Lopes JL, Nogueira-Martins LA, Barbosa DA, Barros AL. Development and validation of an informative booklet on bed bath. Acta Paul Enferm. [Internet]. 2013 [acesso 2022 nov 12];26(6):554-60. Disponível em: https://acta-ape.org/wp-content/uploads/articles_xml/1982-0194-ape-S0103-21002013000600008/1982-0194-ape-S0103-21002013000600008.x42714.pdf.
Sousa CS, Turrini RNT, Poveda VB. Tradução e adaptação do instrumento “Suitability Assessment of Materials” (SAM) para o português. Rev enferm UFPE online. [Internet]. 2015 [acesso 2022 nov 12];9(5):7854-7861. Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufpe.br/revistas/revistaenfermagem/article/view/10534.
Pasquali L. Princípios para elaboração de escalas psicológicas. Rev. Psiquiatr. Clín. [Internet]. 1998 [acesso 2022 nov 12];25(5):206-13. Disponível em: http://ppget.ifam.edu.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Principios-de-elaboracao-de-escalas-psicologicas.pdf.
Fehring R. Methods to validate nursing diagnoses. Heart & Lung. [Internet]. 1987 [acesso 2022 nov 12];16(6):625-629. Disponível em: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/213076462.pdf.
Medeiros SG, Lima Neto AV, Saraiva CO, Barbosa ML, Santos VE. Avaliação da segurança no cuidado com vacinas: construção e validação de protocolo. Acta Paul Enferm. [Internet]. 2019 [acesso 2022 nov 12];32(1):53-64. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/ape/a/VnY5xXRKtwgvDtTRWtjBgCx/?format=pdf&lang=pt.
Medeiros RKS, Júnior MAF, Pinto DPSR, Vitor AF, Santos VEP, Barichello E. Modelo de validação de conteúdo de Pasquali nas pesquisas em Enfermagem. Revista de Enfermagem Referência. [Internet]. 2015 [acesso 2022 nov 12];4(4):127-135. Disponível em: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3882/388239974007.pdf.
Saraiva CO, Andrade FB, Chiavone FB, Barbosa ML, Medeiros SG, Souza NL, et al. Avaliação da segurança do paciente neonatal: construção e validação de protocolo e checklist. Acta Paul Enferm. [Internet]. 2022 [acesso 2022 nov 12];35:eAPE0085345. Disponível em: https://acta-ape.org/wp-content/uploads/articles_xml/1982-0194-ape-35-eAPE0085345/1982-0194-ape-35-eAPE0085345.x42714.pdf.
Dunscombe P, Brown D, Donaldson H, Greener A, O’Neil M, Sutlief S, et al. Safety Profile Assessment: An online tool to gauge safety-critical performance in radiation oncology. Pract Radiat Oncol. [Internet]. 2015 [acesso 2022 nov 12];5(2):127-134. Disponível em: https://www.practicalradonc.org/article/S1879-8500(14)00310-5/fulltext.
Werneck MAF, Faria HP, Campos KFC. Protocolo de cuidado à saúde e organização do serviço. Belo Horizonte: Nescon/ UFMG, Coopmed, 2009;1-84.
Anvisa. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Resolução da Diretoria Colegiada - RDC Nº 20, de 02 de fevereiro de 2006. Brasília – DF. 2006.
Cnen. Comissão Nacional de Energia Nuclear. Resolução CNEN n° 176, de 27 de novembro de 2014. Dispõe sobre os requisitos de segurança e proteção radiológica para serviços de radioterapia. 2014.
Albert AA, Duggar WN, Bhandari RP, Thomas TV, Packianathan S, Allbright RM et al. Analysis of a real time group consensus peer review process in radiation oncology: an evaluation of effectiveness and feasibility. Radiation oncology. [Internet]. 2018 [acesso 2022 nov 12];13(1):1-7. Disponível em: https://ro-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13014-018-1190-z.
Jung OS, Kundu P, Edmondson AC, Hegde J, Agazaryan N, Steinberg M et al. Resilience vs. Vulnerability: Psychological Safety and Reporting of Near Misses with Varying Proximity to Harm in Radiation Oncology. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. [Internet]. 2021 [acesso 2022 nov 12];47(1):15-22. Disponível em: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1553725020302415?via%3Dihub.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Documento de referência para o Programa Nacional de Segurança do Paciente. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2014;1-47.
Leonardsen ACL, Hardeland C, Helgesen AK. Patient experiences with technology enabled care across healthcare settings- a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. [Internet]. 2020 [acesso 2022 nov 12];20(779):1-17. Disponível em: https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-020-05633-4.
Maguire R, Ream E, Richardson A, Connaghan J, Johnston B, Kotronoulas G et al. Development of a Novel Remote Patient Monitoring System: The Advanced Symptom Management System for Radiotherapy to Improve the Symptom Experience of Patients With Lung Cancer Receiving Radiotherapy. Cancer Nursing. [Internet]. 2015 [acesso 2022 nov 12]; 38(2):p E37-E47. Disponível em: https://journals.lww.com/cancernursingonline/Abstract/2015/03000/Development_of_a_Novel_Remote_Patient_Monitoring.14.aspx.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2025-10-07 (2)
- 2025-10-01 (1)
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Deborah da Franscielle da Fonseca, Patrícia Peres de Oliveira, Andrea Bezerra Rodrigues, Thalyta Cristina Mansano Schlosser, Viviane Euzébia Pereira Santos, Juliano Teixeira Moraes, Edilene Aparecida Araújo da Silveira, Jaqueline Maria Siqueira Ferreira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
