Congress:
EuroSafe Imaging 2020
Keywords:
Multicentre study, Observational, Retrospective, Quality assurance, Education and training, Safety, Health policy and practice, Dosimetry, CT, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Radiographers, Action 5 - Performance indicators for radiation protection management
Authors:
T. Szczykutowicz, S. Rose
DOI:
10.26044/esi2020/ESI-02989
References
[1] 21 CFR §900.12(e)(3)(ii). 2018
[2] 21 CFR §1000.55. 2018
[3] Jones PK, Heintz P, Geiser W, et al. Ongoing quality control in digital radiography: report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 151. Med Phys. 2015;42:6658-70
[4] Szczykutowicz TP, Malkus A, Ciano A, Pozniak M. Tracking patterns of nonadherence to prescribed CT protocol parameters. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:224-30
[5] Siegelman JR, Gress DA. Radiology stewardship and quality improvement: the process and costs of implementing a CT radiation dose optimization committee in a medium-sized community hospital system. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:416-22
[6] Szczykutowicz TP, Bour RK, Rubert N, Wendt G, Pozniak M, Ranallo FN. CT protocol management: simplifying the process by using a master protocol concept. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16:228-243
[7] Szczykutowicz TP, Bour RK, Pozniak M, Ranallo FN. Compliance with AAPM Practice Guideline 1.a: CT Protocol Management and Review - From the perspective of a university hospital. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16:443-57