Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

National survey on dose data analysis in computed tomography

  • Computed Tomography
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 01 August 2018

This article has been updated

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 01 August 2018

    The original version of this article, published on 28 May 2018, unfortunately contained a mistake.

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

References

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Exposure of the Swiss population by radiodiagnostics: 2013 review. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26541187. Accessed 17 Nov 2017

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. European Society of Radiology EuroSafe Imaging Campaign. http://www.eurosafeimaging.org/. Accessed 15 May 2018

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. The Joint Commission. Accreditation, Health Care, Certification|Joint Commission. https://www.jointcommission.org/. Accessed 15 May 2018

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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:j347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Society of Radiology; c/o: ecos Office Center, Bellerivestrasse 11, CH-8008, Zürich, Switzerland

    Christina Heilmaier, Elmar Max Merkle, Hatem Alkadhi, Dominik Weishaupt & Sebastian Schindera

  2. Federal Office of Health, Schwarzenburgstrasse 157, CH-3003, Bern, Switzerland

    Reto Treier

  3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031, Basel, Switzerland

    Elmar Max Merkle

  4. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, CH-8091, Zurich, Switzerland

    Hatem Alkadhi

  5. Institute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Stadtspital Triemli Zurich, Birmensdorferstrasse 497, CH-8063, Zurich, Switzerland

    Dominik Weishaupt

  6. Department of Radiology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Tellstrasse 25, CH-5001, Aarau, Switzerland

    Sebastian Schindera

Authors
  1. Christina Heilmaier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reto Treier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elmar Max Merkle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hatem Alkadhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dominik Weishaupt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sebastian Schindera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Heilmaier.

Ethics declarations

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

Additional information

The original version of this article was revised: The name of Hatem Alkadhi was presented incorrectly.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 1073 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heilmaier, C., Treier, R., Merkle, E.M. et al. National survey on dose data analysis in computed tomography . Eur Radiol 28, 5044–5050 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5408-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5408-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation