Validation plan of bone marrow collection, processing and distribution using the failure mode and effect analysis
Luciana Teofili1, Maria Bianchi2, Caterina Giovanna Valentini2
1Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Rome, Italy; Sezione di Ematologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Radiologiche ed Ematologiche, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Background Aims:
Bone marrow (BM) is commonly used in the pediatric and adult setting as a source of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). The standards of the Joint Accreditation Committee of the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy & European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (JACIE) include specific requirements regarding BM collection, processing and distribution. To run this process, each transplant team develops a series of JACIE-compliant procedures, customizing them with regard to local settings and paths. Moreover, JACIE standards require that transplant teams validate and periodically revise their procedures to keep the entire process under control. In this article, the authors describe the methodology adopted in our center to fulfill the aforementioned JACIE requirements.
Methods:
The authors developed a validation plan based on the failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) methodology. According to the FMEA approach, the authors carefully revised activities and procedures connected to BM collection, processing and distribution at our institution. The entire process was initially divided into five main phases (assessment of donor eligibility, perioperative autologous blood donation, preparation of BM collection kit, BM harvesting and BM processing and distribution), comprising 17 subphases and 22 activities.
Results:
For each activity, one or more failure modes were identified, for a total of 28 failure modes, and a risk priority number (RPN) was then assigned to each failure mode. Although many procedures were validated, others were subjected to substantial changes according to the RPN rating. Moreover, specific indicators were identified for subsequent monitoring to contain the risk of failure of steps emerging as critical at FMEA.
Conclusions:
This is the first study describing use of the FMEA methodology within an HSC transplant program. Shaping the risk analysis based on local experience may be a trustworthy tool for identifying critical issues, directing strict monitoring of critical steps or even amending connected procedures. Overall, the FMEA approach enabled the authors to improve our process, checking its consistency over time.
