Establishing Diagnostic Reference Levels for CT Through a Provincial Medical Informatics Metadata Repository in Ontario.

PURPOSE: To determine whether computed tomography radiation dose data could be captured electronically across hospitals to derive regional diagnostic reference levels for quality improvement. METHODS: Data on consecutive computed tomography examinations from 8 hospitals were collected automatically in a central database (Repository) from April 2017 to September 2017. The most frequently performed examinations were used to determine the standard protocols for each hospital. Diagnostic reference levels across hospitals were derived using statistical distribution for 2 radiation dose metrics. These values were compared between hospitals, within and between hospitals by scanner and against national Health Canada achievable doses and diagnostic reference levels. RESULTS: Three master protocol groups, Head, Abdomen-Pelvis, and Chest-Abdomen-Pelvis, accounted for 43% of all valid studies (N = 40 277). For the Repository, 11 of 12 mean values and 75th percentile diagnostic reference levels were below the Health Canada mean and 75th percentile values, and one was the same as the Health Canada value. Mean radiation dose by protocol varied by as much as 97% between hospitals. There was no consistent pattern in the difference between mean doses between large and small hospitals. CONCLUSION: This electronic data acquisition process could be used to continually update achievable doses for frequently used computed tomography examinations in Ontario and eliminate the need for nationwide manual surveys. Results compared across institutions will allow hospitals to maintain achievable doses and lower patient exposure.

Proof of Concept: Phantom Study to Ensure Quality and Safety of Portable Chest Radiography Through Glass During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Chest radiography is often used to detect lung involvement in patients with suspected pneumonia. Chest radiography through glass walls of an isolation room is a technique that could be immensely useful in the current COVID-19 pandemic. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to ensure quality and radiation safety while acquiring portable chest radiographs through the glass doors of isolation rooms using an adult anthropomorphic thorax phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen chest radiographs were acquired utilizing different exposure factors without glass, through the smart glass, and through regular glass. Images were scored independently by 2 radiologists for quantum mottle and sharpness of anatomical structures using a 5-point Likert scale. Statistically significant differences in Likert scale scores and entrance surface dose (ESD) between images acquired without glass and through the smart and regular glass were tested. Interreader reliability was also evaluated. RESULTS: Compared with conventional radiography, equal or higher mean image quality scores (mottle and anatomical structures) were observed with the smart glass using 100 kVp at 12 mAs and 20 mAs and 125 kVp at 6.3 mAs (100 kVp at 2 mAs and 125 kVp at 3.2 mAs were used for conventional radiography observations). There was no statistically significant difference in the Likert scale scores for image quality and the entrance surface dose for radiographs acquired without glass, through the smart glass, and through regular glass. Backscatter from the smart glass was minimal at a distance of 3 m and was recorded as zero at a distance of 4 m from the x-ray tube outside an isolation room. CONCLUSIONS: Good-quality portable chest radiographs can be obtained safely through the smart glass doors of the isolation room. However, this technique does result in minor backscatter radiation. Modifications in the exposure factors (such as increasing milliampere seconds) may be required to optimize image quality while using this technique.

Tracking and Resolving CT Dose Metric Outliers Using Root-Cause Analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the frequency and type of outlier dose metrics for three common CT examination types on the basis of a root-cause analysis (RCA) approach. METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective observational study. The requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. Between January 2010 and December 2013, radiation dose metric data from 34,615 CT examinations, including 26,878 routine noncontrast CT head, 2,992 CT pulmonary angiographic (CTPA), and 4,745 renal colic examinations, were extracted from a radiation dose index monitoring database and manually cleaned. Dose outliers were identified on the basis of the statistical distribution of volumetric CT dose index and dose-length product for each examination type; values higher than the 99th percentile and less than the 1st percentile were flagged for RCA. RESULTS: There were 397 noncontrast CT head, 52 CTPA, and 80 renal colic outliers. Root causes for high-outlier examinations included repeat examinations due to patient motion (n = 122 [31%]), modified protocols mislabeled as "routine" (n = 69 [18%]), higher dose examinations for patients with large body habitus (n = 27 [7%]), repeat examinations due to technical artifacts (n = 20 [5%]), and repeat examinations due to suboptimal contrast timing (CTPA examinations) (n = 18 [5%]). Root causes for low-outlier examinations included low-dose protocols (n = 112 [29%]) and aborted examinations (n = 8 [2%]). On the basis of examination frequency over a 3-month period, the 90th and 10th percentile values were set in the radiation dose index monitoring database as thresholds for sending notifications to staff members responsible for outlier investigations. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic RCA of dose outliers identifies sources of variation and dose excess and pinpoints specific protocol and technical shortcomings for corrective action.

Identifying Institutional Diagnostic Reference Levels for CT with Radiation Dose Index Monitoring Software.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate radiation optimization efforts over 4 years for three computed tomography (CT) protocols and to determine institutional (local) diagnostic reference levels for prospective tracking by using automated radiation dose index monitoring software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Approval for this retrospective observational study was obtained from the hospital research ethics board, and the need to obtain informed consent was waived. The study followed a 48-month radiation dose optimization effort in a large academic inner-city trauma and quaternary referral center. Exposure according to equipment, protocol, and year (2010-2013) for adult patients was determined for routine unenhanced head CT examinations, CT pulmonary angiography examinations, and CT examinations for renal colic. Mean exposure (as volume CT dose index [CTDIvol] and dose-length product [DLP]) was averaged to establish local diagnostic reference levels. Means and 75th percentiles for 2013 were compared with findings from surveys in Canada and diagnostic reference levels for similar protocol types internationally. Student t tests were performed to assess significance between annual means, and χ(2) tests were performed for changes in categoric variables. RESULTS: There were 36 996 examinations in 25 234 patients. There was an average exposure reduction of 22% for CTDIvol and 13% for DLP from 2010 to 2013. In 2013, mean CTDIvol for routine head examinations was 50.8 mGy ± 3.7 (standard deviation), 11.8 mGy ± 5.6 for CT pulmonary angiography examinations, and 10.2 mGy ± 4.2 for renal colic CT examinations, while mean DLP was 805.7 mGy · cm ± 124.3, 432.8 mGy-cm ± 219.9, and 469.4 mGy · cm ± 209.2, respectively. The mean CTDIvol and DLP in 2013 were at or close to identified reference values; however, additional optimization is required to reach "as low as reasonably achievable" values for all examinations. CONCLUSION: Automated methods of radiation dose data collection permit a detailed analysis of radiation dose according to protocol and equipment over time. Radiation dose optimization measures were effective, but their full value may be realized only with changes in internal processes and real-time, prospective data monitoring and analysis.

Behavior-change action plans in primary care: a feasibility study of clinicians.

PURPOSE: Collaborative goal-setting--with clinician and patient together deciding on concrete behavior-change goals-may be more effective in encouraging healthy behaviors than traditional clinician-directed advice. This study explores whether it is feasible for clinicians to engage patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors in collaborative goal-setting and concrete action planning during the primary care visit. METHODS: Primary care clinicians were trained in goal-setting and action planning techniques and asked to conduct action plan discussions with study patients during medical visits. Clinicians' experiences were documented through post-visit surveys and with questionnaires and semistructured interviews at the end of the study. RESULTS: Forty-three clinicians and 274 patients with CHD risk factors participated in the study; 83% of the patient encounters resulted in a behavior-change action plan. Goal-setting discussions lasted an average of 6.9 minutes. Clinicians rated 75% of the discussions as equally or more satisfying than previous behavior-change discussions, and identified time constraints as the most important barrier to adopting the goal-setting process. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative goal-setting between clinicians and patients for improved health behaviors is viewed favorably by clinicians in primary care. Time constraints could be addressed by delegating goal-setting to other caregivers.

Using action plans to help primary care patients adopt healthy behaviors: a descriptive study.

PURPOSE: An action plan is an agreement between clinician and patient that the patient will make a specific behavior change. The goals of this study are to: determine whether it is feasible for patients to make action plans in the primary care visit; determine whether patients report carrying out their action plans; and describe the action plans patients choose. METHODS: Forty-three clinicians in 8 primary care sites were recruited to hold action-plan discussions with patients. Research assistants contacted patients by telephone 3 weeks later to assess whether patients had conducted their action plans. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent of enrolled patients (228) made an action plan during a primary care visit. Of the 79% who recalled making the action plan when interviewed by telephone 3 weeks later, 56% recalled the details of their action plan, and an additional 33% recalled the general nature of the action plan. At least 53% of patients making an action plan reported making a behavior change consistent with that action plan. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients reported making a behavior change based on an action plan, suggesting that action plans may be a useful strategy to encourage behavior change for patients seen in primary care.

Practice-based research in primary care: facilitator of, or barrier to, practice improvement?

PURPOSE: In what ways is primary care practice-based research a facilitator of practice improvement vs a barrier to practice change? This article aims to alert investigators to the pitfalls they may face in undertaking the dual agenda of research and practice improvement. METHODS: We derived examples of the relationship between the research and practice improvement goals of 17 Prescription for Health (P4H) grantees from verbal communications with the grantees, field notes from interviews and site visits, and entries made by grantees to an online diary managed by the P4H Analysis Team. RESULTS: An analysis of key themes identified factors facilitating and impeding the dual goals of research and practice improvement. The requirements of conducting research mandated by institutional review boards, including patient enrollment and consent, often constituted barriers to practice improvement. The choice of practices in which to conduct research and improvement activities and the manner in which the practices are approached may affect the outcome of both research and practice improvement goals. Approaching practices with a time-limited project mentality can interfere with a process of permanent practice change. The RE-AIM construct (reach, efficacy/effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) is useful in designing research interventions that facilitate practice improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Projects that meld research studies and practice improvement goals must pay attention to the potential conflicts between research and practice change, and must attempt to design research studies so that they facilitate rather than inhibit practice improvement.