IPEM Topical Report: An evidence and risk assessment based analysis of the efficacy of quality assurance tests on fluoroscopy units-part II; image quality.

This work aims to assess the efficacy of x-ray quality assurance tests undertaken on fluoroscopy units in the UK. Information was gathered on the results of image quality tests recommended by the reports of the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, and those additionally undertaken by medical physics departments. The assessment of efficacy considers the frequency with which a test result breaches the remedial level or other relevant threshold where applicable. The third quartile of those results exceeding the remedial level or threshold is used to estimate the severity of such a breach in terms of potential impact on patient dose and image quality. A risk assessment approach is then used to recommend to what degree, if any, the test should be included in an on-going test regimen. Data was analysed from 469 testing sessions to 337 unique fluoroscopy units throughout the UK. Across all tests, the rate with which the remedial level was exceeded varied from 0-10.6%, with severity ranging from little or none to major degradation to image quality or significant increase on population dose. Where possible, the data has also been used to produce representative ranges for the results of image quality tests. These could be useful as an up to date comparator for those sites considering the purchase of or commissioning new equipment. Overall the results indicate a wide range for the efficacy of those tests undertaken at present; this can be used to review local test protocols and to inform future changes to national guidance in the UK. The results also highlight some tests where measurement technique varies significantly throughout the UK, making any valid comparison difficult. This may indicate a need for further guidance on how best to undertake these tests.

IPEM Topical Report: an evidence and risk assessment based analysis of the efficacy of quality assurance tests on fluoroscopy units-part I; dosimetry and safety.

This work aims to assess the efficacy of x-ray quality assurance tests undertaken on fluoroscopy units in the UK. Information was gathered on the results of dosimetry and safety tests recommended by the reports of the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, and those additionally undertaken by medical physics departments. The assessment of efficacy considers the frequency with which a test result breaches the remedial level or other relevant threshold where applicable. The third quartile of those results exceeding the remedial level or threshold is used to estimate the severity of such a breach in terms of potential impact on patient dose and image quality. A risk assessment approach is then used to recommend to what degree, if any, the test should be included in an on-going test regimen. Data was analysed from 468 testing sessions to 336 unique fluoroscopy units throughout the UK. Across all tests, the rate with which the remedial level was exceeded varied from 0%-29.5%, with severity ranging from little or none to major degradation to image quality or significant increase on population dose. Where possible, the data has also been used to produce representative ranges for the results of dosimetric tests. These could be useful as an up to date comparator for those sites considering the purchase of or commissioning new equipment. Overall the results indicate a wide range for the efficacy of those tests undertaken at present; this can be used to review local test protocols and to inform future changes to national guidance in the UK. The results also highlight some tests where measurement technique varies significantly throughout the UK, making any valid comparison difficult. This may indicate a need for further guidance on how best to undertake these tests.

IPEM Topical Report: an evidence and risk assessment based analysis of the efficacy of tube and generator quality assurance tests on general x-ray units.

This work aims to assess the efficacy of current x-ray quality assurance (QA) testing regimes on tube and generator systems for general radiographic usage in the UK. 1393 sets of QA results data from nine UK medical physics departments were collected and analysed. Test failure rates ranged from 0% to 39% and were used to assess the likelihood of the test finding a fault. The magnitude of the recorded faults were used to assess the severity of the failure with due consideration to its impact on image quality and patient dose. The severity and likelihood of the faults were used along with a risk matrix to assess the efficacy of each test. Eleven tests were graded 'orange' (indicating an effective test that should be continued), four tests were graded 'yellow' (indicating a less effective test that may be continued with a lower frequency considered) and four tests were graded green (indicating a low efficacy test that could be removed from test regimes).

Quality assurance and quality control in mammography: a review of available guidance worldwide.

OBJECTIVES: Review available guidance for quality assurance (QA) in mammography and discuss its contribution to harmonise practices worldwide. METHODS: Literature search was performed on different sources to identify guidance documents for QA in mammography available worldwide in international bodies, healthcare providers, professional/scientific associations. The guidance documents identified were reviewed and a selection was compared for type of guidance (clinical/technical), technology and proposed QA methodologies focusing on dose and image quality (IQ) performance assessment. RESULTS: Fourteen protocols (targeted at conventional and digital mammography) were reviewed. All included recommendations for testing acquisition, processing and display systems associated with mammographic equipment. All guidance reviewed highlighted the importance of dose assessment and testing the Automatic Exposure Control (AEC) system. Recommended tests for assessment of IQ showed variations in the proposed methodologies. Recommended testing focused on assessment of low-contrast detection, spatial resolution and noise. QC of image display is recommended following the American Association of Physicists in Medicine guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The existing QA guidance for mammography is derived from key documents (American College of Radiology and European Union guidelines) and proposes similar tests despite the variations in detail and methodologies. Studies reported on QA data should provide detail on experimental technique to allow robust data comparison. Countries aiming to implement a mammography/QA program may select/prioritise the tests depending on available technology and resources. MAIN MESSAGES: •An effective QA program should be practical to implement in a clinical setting. •QA should address the various stages of the imaging chain: acquisition, processing and display. •AEC system QC testing is simple to implement and provides information on equipment performance.