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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Szczykutowicz, Timothy P., Bour, Robert K., Pozniak, Myron, Ranallo, Frank N.
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