Congress:
EuroSafe Imaging 2016
Keywords:
Action 3 - Optimisation, diagnostic reference levels, image quality, Action 2 - Clinical diagnostic reference levels (DRLs)
Authors:
S. Schindera, A. Euler, A. Parakh
DOI:
10.1594/esi2016/ESI-0036
Conclusion and Recommendations
The cardinal advantage of dose monitoring softwares is the easy near real-time availability of the processed big-data,
which was done earlier manually and hence was prone to marked errors.
Therefore,
guidelines can be made on the basis of a larger sample size which would be representative of the average doses in an institution rather than reflect the ‘best case scenario’ and reduce variability.
Results from our study (with larger sample size) show that published national DRL are outdated,
especially for CT thorax and that the currently available dose-reduction techniques appear to be optimal to reinforce in clinical routine.
At the inter-institutional level,
this data is anonymized and discussed in an objective non-confrontational manner to optimize the process and learn from institutions with consistently lower doses.
There are still a few hurdles for setting up a local registry,
the most important of which is lack of standardized nomenclature for protocols.
Gradually renaming and standardizing protocols by using established lexicon such as Radlex could address this.
Other challenges remain with respect to monetary resources,
motivation of an institution to provide ‘optimal’ care and allocated time for carrying out ‘dose work’.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
Programmatic radiation dose monitoring using RTS has emerged as a valuable tool to understand,
manage and mitigate dose concerns.
But the process should have clear justifications,
objectives and operational components in order to be efficient and effective.