Cargando…

Implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of CT protocols

Protocol review is important to decrease the risk of patient injury and increase the consistency of CT image quality. A large volume of CT protocols makes manual review labor‐intensive, error‐prone, and costly. To address these challenges, we have developed a software system for automatically managi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grimes, Joshua, Leng, Shuai, Zhang, Yi, Vrieze, Thomas, McCollough, Cynthia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27685112
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6164
_version_ 1783310105772556288
author Grimes, Joshua
Leng, Shuai
Zhang, Yi
Vrieze, Thomas
McCollough, Cynthia
author_facet Grimes, Joshua
Leng, Shuai
Zhang, Yi
Vrieze, Thomas
McCollough, Cynthia
author_sort Grimes, Joshua
collection PubMed
description Protocol review is important to decrease the risk of patient injury and increase the consistency of CT image quality. A large volume of CT protocols makes manual review labor‐intensive, error‐prone, and costly. To address these challenges, we have developed a software system for automatically managing and monitoring CT protocols on a frequent basis. This article describes our experiences in the implementation and evaluation of this protocol monitoring system. In particular, we discuss various strategies for addressing each of the steps in our protocol‐monitoring workflow, which are: maintaining an accurate set of master protocols, retrieving protocols from the scanners, comparing scanner protocols to master protocols, reviewing flagged differences between the scanner and master protocols, and updating the scanner and/or master protocols. In our initial evaluation focusing only on abdomen and pelvis protocols, we detected 309 modified protocols in a 24‐week trial period. About one‐quarter of these modified protocols were determined to contain inappropriate (i.e., erroneous) protocol parameter modifications that needed to be corrected on the scanner. The most frequently affected parameter was the series description, which was inappropriately modified 47 times. Two inappropriate modifications were made to the tube current, which is particularly important to flag as this parameter impacts both radiation dose and image quality. The CT protocol changes detected in this work provide strong motivation for the use of an automated CT protocol quality control system to ensure protocol accuracy and consistency. PACS number(s): 87.57.Q‐
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5874106
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58741062018-04-02 Implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of CT protocols Grimes, Joshua Leng, Shuai Zhang, Yi Vrieze, Thomas McCollough, Cynthia J Appl Clin Med Phys Management and Profession Protocol review is important to decrease the risk of patient injury and increase the consistency of CT image quality. A large volume of CT protocols makes manual review labor‐intensive, error‐prone, and costly. To address these challenges, we have developed a software system for automatically managing and monitoring CT protocols on a frequent basis. This article describes our experiences in the implementation and evaluation of this protocol monitoring system. In particular, we discuss various strategies for addressing each of the steps in our protocol‐monitoring workflow, which are: maintaining an accurate set of master protocols, retrieving protocols from the scanners, comparing scanner protocols to master protocols, reviewing flagged differences between the scanner and master protocols, and updating the scanner and/or master protocols. In our initial evaluation focusing only on abdomen and pelvis protocols, we detected 309 modified protocols in a 24‐week trial period. About one‐quarter of these modified protocols were determined to contain inappropriate (i.e., erroneous) protocol parameter modifications that needed to be corrected on the scanner. The most frequently affected parameter was the series description, which was inappropriately modified 47 times. Two inappropriate modifications were made to the tube current, which is particularly important to flag as this parameter impacts both radiation dose and image quality. The CT protocol changes detected in this work provide strong motivation for the use of an automated CT protocol quality control system to ensure protocol accuracy and consistency. PACS number(s): 87.57.Q‐ John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5874106/ /pubmed/27685112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6164 Text en © 2016 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
Grimes, Joshua
Leng, Shuai
Zhang, Yi
Vrieze, Thomas
McCollough, Cynthia
Implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of CT protocols
title Implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of CT protocols
title_full Implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of CT protocols
title_fullStr Implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of CT protocols
title_full_unstemmed Implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of CT protocols
title_short Implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of CT protocols
title_sort implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of ct protocols
topic Management and Profession
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27685112
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6164
work_keys_str_mv AT grimesjoshua implementationandevaluationofaprotocolmanagementsystemforautomatedreviewofctprotocols
AT lengshuai implementationandevaluationofaprotocolmanagementsystemforautomatedreviewofctprotocols
AT zhangyi implementationandevaluationofaprotocolmanagementsystemforautomatedreviewofctprotocols
AT vriezethomas implementationandevaluationofaprotocolmanagementsystemforautomatedreviewofctprotocols
AT mccolloughcynthia implementationandevaluationofaprotocolmanagementsystemforautomatedreviewofctprotocols