Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Clinical decision-making tools for exam selection, reporting and dose tracking

  • Image Gently ALARA CT summit: How to Use New CT Technologies for Children
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although many efforts have been made to reduce the radiation dose associated with individual medical imaging examinations to “as low as reasonably achievable,” efforts to ensure such examinations are performed only when medically indicated and appropriate are equally if not more important. Variations in the use of ionizing radiation for medical imaging are concerning, regardless of whether they occur on a local, regional or national basis. Such variations among practices can be reduced with the use of decision support tools at the time of order entry. These tools help reduce radiation exposure among practices through the appropriate use of medical imaging. Similarly, adoption of best practices among imaging facilities can be promoted through tracking the radiation exposure among imaging patients. Practices can benchmark their aggregate radiation exposures for medical imaging through the use of dose index registries. However several variables must be considered when contemplating individual patient dose tracking. The specific dose measures and the variation among them introduced by variations in body habitus must be understood. Moreover the uncertainties in risk estimation from dose metrics related to age, gender and life expectancy must also be taken into account.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brink JA (2014) Dose tracking and rational exam selection for the medically-exposed population. Health Phys 106:225–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. New York Times (2011) Hospitals perform needless double CT scans, records show. 18 June 2011, p 1

  3. American College of Radiology (2013) About the ACR appropriateness criteria. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Appropriateness-Criteria/About-AC. Accessed 20 June 2013

  4. Government of Western Australia, Department of Health (2013) A clinical decision support tool and educational resource for diagnostic imaging. http://www.imagingpathways.health.wa.gov.au. Accessed 13 April 2013

  5. Berland LL, Silverman SG, Gore RM et al (2010) Managing incidental findings on abdominal CT: white paper of the ACR incidental findings committee. J Am Coll Radiol 7:754–773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berland LL, Silverman SG, Megibow AJ et al (2014) ACR members’ response to JACR white paper on the management of incidental abdominal CT findings. J Am Coll Radiol 11:30–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hendee WR, Becker GJ, Borgstede JP et al (2010) Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology 257:240–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sistrom CL, Dang PA, Weilburg JB et al (2009) Effect of computerized order entry with decision support on the growth of outpatient procedure volumes: seven-year time series analysis. Radiology 251:147–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Blackmore CC, Mecklenburg RS, Kaplan GS (2011) Effectiveness of clinical decision support in controlling inappropriate imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 8:19–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Boland GWL, Thrall JH, Gazelle GS et al (2011) Decision support for radiologist report recommendations. J Am Coll Radiol 8:819–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hendee WR, O’Connor MK (2012) Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. Radiology 264:312–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Israel GM, Cicchiello L, Brink JA et al (2010) Patient size and radiation exposures in thoracic, pelvic, and abdominal CT examinations performed with automatic exposure control. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:1342–1346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. (2011) AAPM 204 -- Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE) in pediatric and adult body CT examinations. Report of AAPM Task Group 204. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD

  14. (2013) Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR 2013 report, volume 2, Scientific NXB effects of radiation exposure in children. Available via http://www.unscear.org/en/publications/2013_2.html. Accessed 21 April 2014

  15. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council (2005) Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation -- BEIR VII. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shuryak I, Sachs RK, Brenner DJ (2010) Cancer risks after radiation exposure in middle age. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:1628–1636

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Brenner DJ, Shuryak I, Einstein AJ (2011) Impact of reduced patient life expectancy on potential cancer risks from radiologic imaging. Radiology 261:193–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bankier AA, Kressel HY (2012) Through the looking glass revisited: the need for more meaning and less drama in the reporting of dose and dose reduction in CT. Radiology 265:4–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mahajan A, Starker LF, Ghita M et al (2012) Parathyroid 4DCT: evaluation of radiation dose exposure during preoperative localization of parathyroid tumors in primary hyperparathyroidism. World J Surg 36:1335–1339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Brink has no financial interests, investigational or off-label uses to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James A. Brink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brink, J.A. Clinical decision-making tools for exam selection, reporting and dose tracking. Pediatr Radiol 44 (Suppl 3), 418–421 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3015-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3015-z

Keywords

Navigation