Establishment of institutional diagnostic reference level for computed tomography with automated dose‐tracking software

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to establish institutional diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) by summarising doses collected across the five computed tomography (CT) system in our institution. METHODS: CT dose data of 15940 patients were collected retrospectively from May 2015 to October 2015 in five institutional scanners. The mean, 75th percentile and 90th percentile of the dose spread were calculated according to anatomic region. The common CT examinations such as head, chest, combined abdomen/pelvis (A/P), and combined chest/abdomen/pelvis (C/A/P) were reviewed. Distribution of CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose‐length product (DLP) and effective dose (ED) were extracted from the data for single‐phasic and multiphasic examinations. RESULTS: The institutional DRL for our CT units were established as mean (50th percentile) of CTDIvol (mGy), DLP (mGy.cm) and ED (mSv) for single and multiphasic studies using the dose‐tracking software. In single phasic examination, Head: (49.0 mGy), (978.0 mGy.cm), (2.4 mSv) respectively; Chest: (6.0 mGy), (254.0 mGy.cm), (4.9 mSv) respectively; CT A/P (10.0 mGy), (514.0 mGy.cm), (8.9 mSv) respectively; CT C/A/P (10.0 mGy), (674.0 mGy.cm), (11.8 mSv) respectively. In multiphasic studies: Head (45.0 mGy), (1822.0 mGy.cm), (5.0 mSv) respectively; Chest (8.0 mGy), (577.0 mGy.cm), (10.0 mSv) respectively; CT A/P: (10.0 mGy), (1153.0 mGy.cm), (20.2 mSv) respectively; CT C/A/P: (11.0 mGy), (1090.0 mGy.cm), (19.2 mSv) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The reported metrics offer a variety of information that institutions can use for quality improvement activities. The variations in dose between scanners suggest a large potential for optimisation of radiation dose.