Cargando…
Compliance with AAPM Practice Guideline 1.a: CT Protocol Management and Review — from the perspective of a university hospital
The purpose of this paper is to describe our experience with the AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 1.a: “CT Protocol Management and Review Practice Guideline”. Specifically, we will share how our institution's quality management system addresses the suggestions within the AAPM practice re...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690099/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26103176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i2.5023 |
_version_ | 1783279529387622400 |
---|---|
author | Szczykutowicz, Timothy P. Bour, Robert K. Pozniak, Myron Ranallo, Frank N. |
author_facet | Szczykutowicz, Timothy P. Bour, Robert K. Pozniak, Myron Ranallo, Frank N. |
author_sort | Szczykutowicz, Timothy P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The purpose of this paper is to describe our experience with the AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 1.a: “CT Protocol Management and Review Practice Guideline”. Specifically, we will share how our institution's quality management system addresses the suggestions within the AAPM practice report. We feel this paper is needed as it was beyond the scope of the AAPM practice guideline to provide specific details on fulfilling individual guidelines. Our hope is that other institutions will be able to emulate some of our practices and that this article would encourage other types of centers (e.g., community hospitals) to share their methodology for approaching CT protocol optimization and quality control. Our institution had a functioning CT protocol optimization process, albeit informal, since we began using CT. Recently, we made our protocol development and validation process compliant with a number of the ISO 9001:2008 clauses and this required us to formalize the roles of the members of our CT protocol optimization team. We rely heavily on PACS‐based IT solutions for acquiring radiologist feedback on the performance of our CT protocols and the performance of our CT scanners in terms of dose (scanner output) and the function of the automatic tube current modulation. Specific details on our quality management system covering both quality control and ongoing optimization have been provided. The roles of each CT protocol team member have been defined, and the critical role that IT solutions provides for the management of files and the monitoring of CT protocols has been reviewed. In addition, the invaluable role management provides by being a champion for the project has been explained; lack of a project champion will mitigate the efforts of a CT protocol optimization team. Meeting the guidelines set forth in the AAPM practice guideline was not inherently difficult, but did, in our case, require the cooperation of radiologists, technologists, physicists, IT, administrative staff, and hospital management. Some of the IT solutions presented in this paper are novel and currently unique to our institution. PACS number: 87.57.Q |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5690099 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56900992018-04-02 Compliance with AAPM Practice Guideline 1.a: CT Protocol Management and Review — from the perspective of a university hospital Szczykutowicz, Timothy P. Bour, Robert K. Pozniak, Myron Ranallo, Frank N. J Appl Clin Med Phys Management and Profession The purpose of this paper is to describe our experience with the AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 1.a: “CT Protocol Management and Review Practice Guideline”. Specifically, we will share how our institution's quality management system addresses the suggestions within the AAPM practice report. We feel this paper is needed as it was beyond the scope of the AAPM practice guideline to provide specific details on fulfilling individual guidelines. Our hope is that other institutions will be able to emulate some of our practices and that this article would encourage other types of centers (e.g., community hospitals) to share their methodology for approaching CT protocol optimization and quality control. Our institution had a functioning CT protocol optimization process, albeit informal, since we began using CT. Recently, we made our protocol development and validation process compliant with a number of the ISO 9001:2008 clauses and this required us to formalize the roles of the members of our CT protocol optimization team. We rely heavily on PACS‐based IT solutions for acquiring radiologist feedback on the performance of our CT protocols and the performance of our CT scanners in terms of dose (scanner output) and the function of the automatic tube current modulation. Specific details on our quality management system covering both quality control and ongoing optimization have been provided. The roles of each CT protocol team member have been defined, and the critical role that IT solutions provides for the management of files and the monitoring of CT protocols has been reviewed. In addition, the invaluable role management provides by being a champion for the project has been explained; lack of a project champion will mitigate the efforts of a CT protocol optimization team. Meeting the guidelines set forth in the AAPM practice guideline was not inherently difficult, but did, in our case, require the cooperation of radiologists, technologists, physicists, IT, administrative staff, and hospital management. Some of the IT solutions presented in this paper are novel and currently unique to our institution. PACS number: 87.57.Q John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5690099/ /pubmed/26103176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i2.5023 Text en © 2015 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Management and Profession Szczykutowicz, Timothy P. Bour, Robert K. Pozniak, Myron Ranallo, Frank N. Compliance with AAPM Practice Guideline 1.a: CT Protocol Management and Review — from the perspective of a university hospital |
title | Compliance with AAPM Practice Guideline 1.a: CT Protocol Management and Review — from the perspective of a university hospital |
title_full | Compliance with AAPM Practice Guideline 1.a: CT Protocol Management and Review — from the perspective of a university hospital |
title_fullStr | Compliance with AAPM Practice Guideline 1.a: CT Protocol Management and Review — from the perspective of a university hospital |
title_full_unstemmed | Compliance with AAPM Practice Guideline 1.a: CT Protocol Management and Review — from the perspective of a university hospital |
title_short | Compliance with AAPM Practice Guideline 1.a: CT Protocol Management and Review — from the perspective of a university hospital |
title_sort | compliance with aapm practice guideline 1.a: ct protocol management and review — from the perspective of a university hospital |
topic | Management and Profession |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690099/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26103176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i2.5023 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT szczykutowicztimothyp compliancewithaapmpracticeguideline1actprotocolmanagementandreviewfromtheperspectiveofauniversityhospital AT bourrobertk compliancewithaapmpracticeguideline1actprotocolmanagementandreviewfromtheperspectiveofauniversityhospital AT pozniakmyron compliancewithaapmpracticeguideline1actprotocolmanagementandreviewfromtheperspectiveofauniversityhospital AT ranallofrankn compliancewithaapmpracticeguideline1actprotocolmanagementandreviewfromtheperspectiveofauniversityhospital |