skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-P-04: Implementation of Dose Monitoring Software: Successes and Pitfalls

Abstract

Purpose: to successfully install a dose monitoring software (DMS) application to assist in CT protocol and dose management. Methods: Upon selecting the DMS, we began our implementation of the application. A working group composed of Medical Physics, Radiology Administration, Information Technology, and CT technologists was formed. On-site training in the application was supplied by the vendor. The decision was made to apply the process for all the CT protocols on all platforms at all facilities. Protocols were painstakingly mapped to the correct masters, and the system went ‘live’. Results: We are routinely using DMS as a tool in our Clinical Performance CT QA program. It is useful in determining the effectiveness of revisions to existing protocols, and establishing performance baselines for new units. However, the implementation was not without difficulty. We identified several pitfalls and obstacles which frustrated progress. Including: Training deficiencies, Nomenclature problems, Communication, DICOM variability. Conclusion: Dose monitoring software can be a potent tool for QA. However, implementation of the program can be problematic and requires planning, organization and commitment.

Authors:
 [1]
  1. Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22624447
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMPUTER CODES; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; IMPLEMENTATION; PERFORMANCE; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; TRAINING

Citation Formats

Och, J. SU-F-P-04: Implementation of Dose Monitoring Software: Successes and Pitfalls. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4955711.
Och, J. SU-F-P-04: Implementation of Dose Monitoring Software: Successes and Pitfalls. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955711.
Och, J. 2016. "SU-F-P-04: Implementation of Dose Monitoring Software: Successes and Pitfalls". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955711.
@article{osti_22624447,
title = {SU-F-P-04: Implementation of Dose Monitoring Software: Successes and Pitfalls},
author = {Och, J},
abstractNote = {Purpose: to successfully install a dose monitoring software (DMS) application to assist in CT protocol and dose management. Methods: Upon selecting the DMS, we began our implementation of the application. A working group composed of Medical Physics, Radiology Administration, Information Technology, and CT technologists was formed. On-site training in the application was supplied by the vendor. The decision was made to apply the process for all the CT protocols on all platforms at all facilities. Protocols were painstakingly mapped to the correct masters, and the system went ‘live’. Results: We are routinely using DMS as a tool in our Clinical Performance CT QA program. It is useful in determining the effectiveness of revisions to existing protocols, and establishing performance baselines for new units. However, the implementation was not without difficulty. We identified several pitfalls and obstacles which frustrated progress. Including: Training deficiencies, Nomenclature problems, Communication, DICOM variability. Conclusion: Dose monitoring software can be a potent tool for QA. However, implementation of the program can be problematic and requires planning, organization and commitment.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4955711},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: We have implemented a commercially available Radiation Exposure Monitoring System (REMS) to enhance the processes of radiation dose data collection, analysis and alerting developed over the past decade at our sites of practice. REMS allows for consolidation of multiple radiation dose information sources and quicker alerting than previously developed processes. Methods: Thirty-nine x-ray producing imaging modalities were interfaced with the REMS: thirteen computed tomography scanners, sixteen angiography/interventional systems, nine digital radiography systems and one mammography system. A number of methodologies were used to provide dose data to the REMS: Modality Performed Procedure Step (MPPS) messages, DICOM Radiation Dose Structuredmore » Reports (RDSR), and DICOM header information. Once interfaced, the dosimetry information from each device underwent validation (first 15–20 exams) before release for viewing by end-users: physicians, medical physicists, technologists and administrators. Results: Before REMS, our diagnostic physics group pulled dosimetry data from seven disparate databases throughout the radiology, radiation oncology, cardiology, electrophysiology, anesthesiology/pain management and vascular surgery departments at two major medical centers and four associated outpatient clinics. With the REMS implementation, we now have one authoritative source of dose information for alerting, longitudinal analysis, dashboard/graphics generation and benchmarking. REMS provides immediate automatic dose alerts utilizing thresholds calculated through daily statistical analysis. This has streamlined our Closing the Loop process for estimated skin exposures in excess of our institutional specific substantial radiation dose level which relied on technologist notification of the diagnostic physics group and daily report from the radiology information system (RIS). REMS also automatically calculates the CT size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) as well as provides two-dimensional angulation dose maps for angiography/interventional procedures. Conclusion: REMS implementation has streamlined and consolidated the dosimetry data collection and analysis process at our institutions while eliminating manual entry error and providing immediate alerting and access to dosimetry data to both physicists and physicians. Brent Stewart has funded research through GE Healthcare.« less
  • 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 consistencymore » 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.« less
  • Highlights some of the problems involved in the use of audit retrieval software. Specifically, the following points have been addressed. Defective data may distort the results obtained by using retrieval software. To avoid such distortion, the auditor should employ an integrity oriented retrieval strategy. Guidelines for developing integrity oriented retrievals were provided. The auditor's perspective in parallel processing was defined. Guidelines for performing audits based on parallel processing were established.
  • The TRACES computer program relates the radioactivity concentration in up to 12 specific environmental media to the potential radiation dose to a member of the public via up to 21 exposure pathways. It can calculate doses arising from environmental contamination of short duration (short term accidental release) or personal exposure of short duration (if the receptor evacuates). It can also be used to calculate potential dose equivalent associated with radioactive environmental media arising from long term discharges (operating effluent).