Program Information
Designing Quality and Safety Informatics Through Implementation of a CT Radiation Dose Monitoring Program
JM Wilson1*, E Samei1,2 , (1) Clinical Imaging Physics Group and Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27705, (2) Departments of Physics, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Biomedical Engineering, and Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27705
Presentations
SU-F-R-11 (Sunday, July 31, 2016) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall
Purpose:
Recent legislative and accreditation requirements have driven rapid development and implementation of CT radiation dose monitoring solutions. Institutions must determine how to improve quality, safety, and consistency of their clinical performance. The purpose of this work was to design a strategy and meaningful characterization of results from an in-house, clinically-deployed dose monitoring solution.
Methods:
A dose monitoring platform was designed by our imaging physics group that focused on extracting protocol parameters, dose metrics, and patient demographics and size. Compared to most commercial solutions, which focus on individual exam alerts and global thresholds, the program sought to characterize overall consistency and targeted thresholds based on eight analytic interrogations. Those were based on explicit questions related to protocol application, national benchmarks, protocol and size-specific dose targets, operational consistency, outliers, temporal trends, intra-system variability, and consistent use of electronic protocols. Using historical data since the start of 2013, 95% and 99% intervals were used to establish yellow and amber parameterized dose alert thresholds, respectively, as a function of protocol, scanner, and size.
Results:
Quarterly reports have been generated for three hospitals for 3 quarters of 2015 totaling 27880, 28502, 30631 exams, respectively. Four adult and two pediatric protocols were higher than external institutional benchmarks. Four protocol dose levels were being inconsistently applied as a function of patient size. For the three hospitals, the minimum and maximum amber outlier percentages were [1.53%,2.28%], [0.76%,1.8%], [0.94%,1.17%], respectively. Compared with the electronic protocols, 10 protocols were found to be used with some inconsistency.
Conclusion:
Dose monitoring can satisfy requirements with global alert thresholds and patient dose records, but the real value is in optimizing patient-specific protocols, balancing image quality trade-offs that dose-reduction strategies promise, and improving the performance and consistency of a clinical operation. Data plots that capture patient demographics and scanner performance demonstrate that value.
Contact Email: