Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 12, pp 5044–5050 | Cite as

National survey on dose data analysis in computed tomography

  • Christina HeilmaierEmail author
  • Reto Treier
  • Elmar Max Merkle
  • Hatem Alkadhi
  • Dominik Weishaupt
  • Sebastian Schindera
Computed Tomography

Abstract

Objectives

A nationwide survey was performed assessing current practice of dose data analysis in computed tomography (CT).

Material and Methods

All radiological departments in Switzerland were asked to participate in the on-line survey composed of 19 questions (16 multiple choice, 3 free text). It consisted of four sections: (1) general information on the department, (2) dose data analysis, (3) use of a dose management software (DMS) and (4) radiation protection activities.

Results

In total, 152 out of 241 Swiss radiological departments filled in the whole questionnaire (return rate, 63%). Seventy-nine per cent of the departments (n = 120/152) analyse dose data on a regular basis with considerable heterogeneity in the frequency (1-2 times per year, 45%, n = 54/120; every month, 35%, n = 42/120) and method of analysis. Manual analysis is carried out by 58% (n = 70/120) compared with 42% (n = 50/120) of departments using a DMS. Purchase of a DMS is planned by 43% (n = 30/70) of the departments with manual analysis. Real-time analysis of dose data is performed by 42% (n = 21/50) of the departments with a DMS; however, residents can access the DMS in clinical routine only in 20% (n = 10/50) of the departments. An interdisciplinary dose team, which among other things communicates dose data internally (63%, n = 76/120) and externally, is already implemented in 57% (n = 68/120) departments.

Conclusion

Swiss radiological departments are committed to radiation safety. However, there is high heterogeneity among them regarding the frequency and method of dose data analysis as well as the use of DMS and radiation protection activities.

Key Points

Swiss radiological departments are committed to and interest in radiation safety as proven by a 63% return rate of the survey.

Seventy-nine per cent of departments analyse dose data on a regular basis with differences in the frequency and method of analysis: 42% use a dose management software, while 58% currently perform manual dose data analysis. Of the latter, 43% plan to buy a dose management software.

Currently, only 25% of the departments add radiation exposure data to the final CT report.

Keywords

Surveys and questionnaires Patient safety Radiation protection Quality improvement Computed tomography 

Abbreviations

AGFA

Actien-Gesellschaft für Anilin-Fabrication

ALARA

As low as reasonably achievable

CT

Computed tomography

DICOMSR

Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine-Structured Report

DLP

Dose-length product

DMS

Dose management software

DRL

Diagnostic reference levels

FOH

Federal Office of Health

GE

General Electric

IT

Information technology

PACS

Picture-archiving and communication system

PET

Position emission tomography

SPECT

Single-photon emission computed tomography

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the executive board of the Swiss Society of Radiology for their commitment and support to perform a nationwide dose survey.

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Sebastian Schindera.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because no patient data were analysed.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because no patient data were analysed.

Methodology

• retrospective

• cross-sectional study

• multicentre study

Supplementary material

330_2018_5408_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1073 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Schegerer AA, Nagel H-D, Stamm G et al (2017) Current CT practice in Germany: Results and implications of a nationwide survey. Eur J Radiol 90:114–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Exposure of the Swiss population by radiodiagnostics: 2013 review. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26541187. Accessed 17 Nov 2017
  3. 3.
    Brink JA (2016) Radiation dose management: are we doing enough to ensure adoption of best practices? J Am Coll Radiol 13:601–602.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.04.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parakh A, Euler A, Szucs-Farkas Z, Schindera ST (2017) Trans-Atlantic comparison of CT radiation doses in the era of radiation dose-tracking software. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brink JA, Amis ES (2010) Image Wisely: a campaign to increase awareness about adult radiation protection. Radiology 257:601–602.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10101335 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Bulas D et al (2011) Image Gently: progress and challenges in CT education and advocacy. Pediatr Radiol 41(Suppl 2):461–466.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-011-2133-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Society of Radiology EuroSafe Imaging Campaign. http://www.eurosafeimaging.org/. Accessed 15 May 2018
  8. 8.
    Mundigl S (2014) Modernisation and consolidation of the European radiation protection legislation: the new EURATOM basic safety standards Directive. Radiat Prot Dosimetry.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncu285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2015) Summary of the European Directive 2013/59/Euratom: essentials for health professionals in radiology. Insights Imaging 6:411–417.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-015-0410-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boos J, Meineke A, Bethge OT et al (2016) Dose-monitoring in radiology departments: Status quo and future perspectives. Rofo - Fortschritte Auf Dem Geb Röntgenstrahlen Bildgeb Verfahr 188:443–450.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-109514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Federal Office of Public Health, Berne, Switzerland: Revision of the Ordinance on Radiation Protection. https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19940157/index.html#a9. Accessed 15 May 2018
  12. 12.
    Larson DB, Kruskal JB, Krecke KN, Donnelly LF (2015) Key concepts of patient safety in radiology. Radiographics 35:1677–1693.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140277 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith-Bindman R, Moghadassi M, Wilson N et al (2015) Radiation doses in consecutive CT examinations from five University of California medical centers. Radiology 277:134–141.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142728 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The Joint Commission. Accreditation, Health Care, Certification|Joint Commission. https://www.jointcommission.org/. Accessed 15 May 2018
  15. 15.
    Heilmaier C, Zuber N, Bruijns B, et al (2015) Implementation of dose-monitoring-software in the clinical routine: First experiences. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-106071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heilmaier C, Zuber N, Bruijns B, Weishaupt D (2016) Does real-time monitoring of patient dose with dose management software increase CT technologists’ radiation awareness? AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:1049–1055.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15466 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirova G, Georgiev E, Zasheva C, St Georges A (2015) Dose tracking and radiology department management. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 165:62–66.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncv038 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li X, Yang K, DeLorenzo MC, Liu B (2017) Assessment of radiation dose from abdominal quantitative CT with short scan length. Br J Radiol 90:20160931.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160931 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rampinelli C, De Marco P, Origgi D et al (2017) Exposure to low dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening and risk of cancer: secondary analysis of trial data and risk-benefit analysis. BMJ 356:j347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vano E, Ten JI, Fernandez-Soto JM, Sanchez-Casanueva RM (2013) Experience with patient dosimetry and quality control online for diagnostic and interventional radiology using DICOM services. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:783–790.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10179 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fitousi N (2017) Patient dose-monitoring systems: a new way of managing patient dose and quality in the radiology department. Phys Med.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kanal KM, Butler PF, Sengupta D et al (2017) US Diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses for 10 adult CT examinations. Radiology 284:120–133.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161911 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018
corrected publication July 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Heilmaier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Reto Treier
    • 2
  • Elmar Max Merkle
    • 1
    • 3
  • Hatem Alkadhi
    • 1
    • 4
  • Dominik Weishaupt
    • 1
    • 5
  • Sebastian Schindera
    • 1
    • 6
  1. 1.Swiss Society of Radiology; c/o: ecos Office CenterZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Federal Office of HealthBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland
  4. 4.Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Hospital ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  5. 5.Institute of Radiology and Nuclear MedicineStadtspital Triemli ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyKantonsspital AarauAarauSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations