Dose Monitoring in Radiology Departments: Status Quo and Future Perspectives

Boos, Johannes; Meineke, A.; Bethge, O; Antoch, Gerald; Kröpil, Patric

doi:10.1055/s-0041-109514

Cited by 26 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since modern medical systems in interventional radiology and computed tomography must be able to transfer dose-related parameters to the examination records, dose-related parameters should be continuously recorded and systematically and clearly evaluated with the help of a dose management system [45,46]. As various studies have shown, this is essential for systematic protocol optimization and for a continuous comparison with national DRLs and local reference values [47 -49].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Reference Levels for Diagnostic and Interventional X-Ray Procedures in Germany: Update and Handling

Schegerer

Loose²,

Heuser

et al. 2019

Fortschr Röntgenstr

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Recent developments in medical technology have broadened the spectrum of X-ray procedures and changed exposure practice in X-ray facilities. For this reason, diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for diagnostic and interventional X-ray procedures were updated in 2016 and 2018, respectively. It is the aim of this paper to present the procedure for the update of the DRLs and to give advice on their practical application. Materials and Methods For the determination of DRLs, data from different independent sources that collect dose-relevant data from different facilities in Germany were considered. Seven different weight intervals were specified for classifying pediatric X-ray procedures. For each X-ray procedure considered, the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile of the respective national distribution of the dose-relevant parameters were determined. Additionally, effective doses that correspond to the DRLs were estimated. Results In procedures with already existing DRLs before 2016, the values were lowered by circa 20 % on average. Numerous DRLs were established for the first time (9 for interventional procedures, 10 for CT examinations). Conclusion For dose optimizations even below the new national DRLs, the BfS recommends establishing local reference levels, using dose management software (particularly in CT and interventional radiology), adapting dose-relevant parameters of X-ray protocols to the individual patient size, and establishing internal radiation protection teams responsible for optimizing X-ray procedures in clinical practice. When applying good medical practice and using modern equipment, the median dose values of the nationwide dose distributions can not only be easily achieved but can even be undercut. Key Points: Citation Format

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Reference Levels for Diagnostic and Interventional X-Ray Procedures in Germany: Update and Handling

Schegerer

Loose²,

Heuser

et al. 2019

Fortschr Röntgenstr

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ON13 was a retrospective audit and their system did not calculate the patient's weight. ON13 was the sole study that used an electronic solution described by Boos et al [25] to automatically manage dose record keeping. SK06, SK08, MB10, and BC13 recorded the information at the time of the scan, but QC10, ON10, QC14, and QC08 were completed retrospectively, as they extracted data from the picture archiving and communication system after the fact.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Environmental Scan of the National and Provincial Diagnostic Reference Levels in Canada for Common Adult Computed Tomography Scans

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several regulatory bodies have agreed that low-dose radiation used in medical imaging is a weak carcinogen that follows a linear, non-threshold model of cancer risk. While avoiding radiation is the best course of action to mitigate risk, computed tomography (CT) scans are often critical for diagnosis. In addition to the as low as reasonably achievable principle, a more concrete method of dose reduction for common CT imaging exams is the use of a diagnostic reference level (DRL). This paper examines Canada's national DRL values from the recent CT survey and compares it to published provincial DRLs as well as the DRLs in the United Kingdom and the United States of America for the 3 most common CT exams: head, chest, and abdomen/pelvis. Canada compares well on the international scale, but it should consider using more electronic dose monitoring solutions to create a culture of dose optimization.

show abstract

“…27 In Europe, the European Directive 2013/59/Euratom is binding on European member states 28 and regulates medical radiation protection, including recording of doses for CT examinations and angiograms. 29,28 These international radiation protection efforts likely make it easier for individual countries to develop their own quality programs and ensure their sustainability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An International Survey of Quality and Safety Programs in Radiology

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the status of radiology quality improvement programs in a variety of selected nations worldwide. Methods: A survey was developed by select members of the International Economics Committee of the American College of Radiology on quality programs and was distributed to committee members. Members responded on behalf of their country. The 51-question survey asked about 12 different quality initiatives which were grouped into 4 themes: departments, users, equipment, and outcomes. Respondents reported whether a designated type of quality initiative was used in their country and answered subsequent questions further characterizing it. Results: The response rate was 100% and represented Australia, Canada, China, England, France, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, and the United States. The most frequently reported quality initiatives were imaging appropriateness (91.7%) and disease registries (91.7%), followed by key performance indicators (83.3%) and morbidity and mortality rounds (83.3%). Peer review, equipment accreditation, radiation dose monitoring, and structured reporting were reported by 75.0% of respondents, followed by 58.3% of respondents for quality audits and critical incident reporting. The least frequently reported initiatives included Lean/Kaizen exercises and physician performance assessments, implemented by 25.0% of respondents. Conclusion: There is considerable diversity in the quality programs used throughout the world, despite some influence by national and international organizations, from whom further guidance could increase uniformity and optimize patient care in radiology.

show abstract

Dose Monitoring in Radiology Departments: Status Quo and Future Perspectives

Cited by 26 publications

References 14 publications

Diagnostic Reference Levels for Diagnostic and Interventional X-Ray Procedures in Germany: Update and Handling

Diagnostic Reference Levels for Diagnostic and Interventional X-Ray Procedures in Germany: Update and Handling

An Environmental Scan of the National and Provincial Diagnostic Reference Levels in Canada for Common Adult Computed Tomography Scans

An International Survey of Quality and Safety Programs in Radiology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About