Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identification of quality improvement areas in pediatric MRI from analysis of patient safety reports

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Analysis of safety reports has been utilized to guide practice improvement efforts in adult magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Data specific to pediatric MRI could help target areas of improvement in this population.

Objective

To estimate the incidence of safety reports in pediatric MRI and to determine associated risk factors.

Materials and methods

In a retrospective HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study, a single-institution Radiology Information System was queried to identify MRI studies performed in pediatric patients (0–18 years old) from 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2015. The safety report database was queried for events matching the same demographic and dates. Data on patient age, gender, location (inpatient, outpatient, emergency room [ER]), and the use of sedation/general anesthesia were recorded. Safety reports were grouped into categories based on the cause and their severity. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize continuous variables. Chi-square analyses were performed for univariate determination of statistical significance of variables associated with safety report rates. A multivariate logistic regression was used to control for possible confounding effects.

Results

A total of 16,749 pediatric MRI studies and 88 safety reports were analyzed, yielding a rate of 0.52%. There were significant differences in the rate of safety reports between patients younger than 6 years (0.89%) and those older (0.41%) (P<0.01), sedated (0.8%) and awake children (0.45%) (P<0.01), and inpatients (1.1%) and outpatients (0.4%) (P<0.01). The use of sedation/general anesthesia is an independent risk factor for a safety report (P=0.02). The most common causes for safety reports were service coordination (34%), drug reactions (19%), and diagnostic test and ordering errors (11%).

Conclusion

The overall rate of safety reports in pediatric MRI is 0.52%. Interventions should focus on vulnerable populations, such as younger patients, those requiring sedation, and those in need of acute medical attention.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Johnson E et al (2012) Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996-2010. JAMA 307:2400–2409

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fernandes K, Levin TL, Miller T et al (2016) Evaluating an Image Gently and Image Wisely campaign in a multihospital health care system. J Am Coll Radiol 13:1010–1017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Harvey HB, Hassanzadeh E, Aran S et al (2016) Key performance indicators in radiology: You can't manage what you can't measure. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 45:115–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jones DN, Thomas MJ, Mandel CJ et al (2010) Where failures occur in the imaging care cycle: lessons from the radiology events register. J Am Coll Radiol 7:593–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mansouri M, Aran S, Harvey HB et al (2016) Rates of safety incident reporting in MRI in a large academic medical center. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:998–1007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cooper JB, Newbower RS, Long CD et al (2002) Preventable anesthesia mishaps: a study of human factors. 1978. Qual Saf Health Care 11:277–282

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Hannaford N, Mandel C, Crock C et al (2013) Learning from incident reports in the Australian medical imaging setting: handover and communication errors. Br J Radiol 86:20120336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Jaimes C, Gee MS (2016) Strategies to minimize sedation in pediatric body magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatr Radiol 46:916–927

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Williams K, Thomson D, Seto I et al (2012) Standard 6: age groups for pediatric trials. Pediatrics 129:S153–S160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brook OR, Kruskal JB, Eisenberg RL et al (2015) Root cause analysis: learning from adverse safety events. Radiographics 35:1655–1667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rangamani S, Varghese J, Li L et al (2012) Safety of cardiac magnetic resonance and contrast angiography for neonates and small infants: a 10-year single-institution experience. Pediatr Radiol 42:1339–1346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Plaisier A, Raets MM, van der Starre C et al (2012) Safety of routine early MRI in preterm infants. Pediatr Radiol 42:1205–1211

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Dillman JR, Ellis JH, Cohan RH et al (2007) Frequency and severity of acute allergic-like reactions to gadolinium-containing i.v. contrast media in children and adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1533–1538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sanborn PA, Michna E, Zurakowski D et al (2005) Adverse cardiovascular and respiratory events during sedation of pediatric patients for imaging examinations. Radiology 237:288–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Delgado J, Toro R, Rascovsky S et al (2015) Chloral hydrate in pediatric magnetic resonance imaging: evaluation of a 10-year sedation experience administered by radiologists. Pediatr Radiol 45:108–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kiringoda R, Thurm AE, Hirschtritt ME et al (2010) Risks of propofol sedation/anesthesia for imaging studies in pediatric research: eight years of experience in a clinical research center. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 164:554–560

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Woods D, Thomas E, Holl J et al (2005) Adverse events and preventable adverse events in children. Pediatrics 115:155–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaushal R, Bates DW, Landrigan C et al (2001) Medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients. JAMA 285:2114–2120

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vanderby SA, Babyn PS, Carter MW et al (2010) Effect of anesthesia and sedation on pediatric MR imaging patient flow. Radiology 256:229–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Raschle N, Zuk J, Ortiz-Mantilla S et al (2012) Pediatric neuroimaging in early childhood and infancy: challenges and practical guidelines. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1252:43–50

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Schultz SR, Watson RE Jr, Prescott SL et al (2011) Patient safety event reporting in a large radiology department. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:684–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Beckmann U, Gillies DM, Berenholtz SM et al (2004) Incidents relating to the intra-hospital transfer of critically ill patients. An analysis of the reports submitted to the Australian Incident Monitoring Study in Intensive Care. Intensive Care Med 30:1579–1585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sorra J, United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Westat Inc. (2007) Hospital survey on patient safety culture: 2007 comparative database report. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD

  24. Durand DJ, Young M, Nagy P et al (2015) Mandatory child life consultation and its impact on pediatric MRI workflow in an academic medical center. J Am Coll Radiol 12:594–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tisdall MD, Hess AT, Reuter M et al (2012) Volumetric navigators for prospective motion correction and selective reacquisition in neuroanatomical MRI. Magn Reson Med 68:389–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vasanawala SS, Alley MT, Hargreaves BA et al (2010) Improved pediatric MR imaging with compressed sensing. Radiology 256:607–616

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Glockner JF, Hu HH, Stanley DW et al (2005) Parallel MR imaging: a user's guide. Radiographics 25:1279–1297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Obele CC, Glielmi C, Ream J et al (2015) Simultaneous multislice accelerated free-breathing diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver at 3T. Abdom Imaging 40:2323–2330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Keil B, Alagappan V, Mareyam A et al (2011) Size-optimized 32-channel brain arrays for 3 T pediatric imaging. Magn Reson Med 66:1777–1787

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R et al (2014) Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med 371:1803–1812

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R et al (2012) I-pass, a mnemonic to standardize verbal handoffs. Pediatrics 129:201–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Goldberg-Stein S, Frigini LA, Long S et al (2017) ACR RADPEER committee white paper with 2016 updates: Revised scoring system, new classifications, self-review, and subspecialized Reports. J Am Coll Radiol 14:1080–1086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mansouri M, Shaqdan KW, Aran S et al (2015) Safety incident reporting in emergency radiology: analysis of 1717 safety incident reports. Emerg Radiol 22:623–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Abujudeh HH, Aran S, Daftari Besheli L et al (2014) Outpatient falls prevention program outcome: an increase, a plateau, and a decrease in incident reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:620–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Camilo Jaimes

  2. Division of Abdominal Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Diana J. Murcia

  3. Quality and Safety Office, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Karen Miguel & Cathryn DeFuria

  4. Division of Pediatric Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital for Children, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St., Ellison 237, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Pallavi Sagar & Michael S. Gee

Authors
  1. Camilo Jaimes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diana J. Murcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen Miguel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cathryn DeFuria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pallavi Sagar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael S. Gee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Gee.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jaimes, C., Murcia, D.J., Miguel, K. et al. Identification of quality improvement areas in pediatric MRI from analysis of patient safety reports. Pediatr Radiol 48, 66–73 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3989-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3989-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation