Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 7, Issue 8 , Pages 614-624, August 2010

Multidetector CT Dose: Clinical Practice Improvement Strategies From a Successful Optimization Program

  • Anthony B. Wallace, MS

      Affiliations

    • Medical Physics Section, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Yallambie, Australia
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author and reprints: Anthony B. Wallace, Medical Physics Section, ARPANSA, 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie 3085, Victoria, Australia
  • ,
  • Stacy K. Goergen, MBBS

      Affiliations

    • Radiology Department, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Australia
  • ,
  • Daniel Schick, MS

      Affiliations

    • Biomedical Technology Services, Queensland Health Department, Brisbane, Australia
  • ,
  • Tina Soblusky, MS

      Affiliations

    • Skills Development Centre, Queensland Health Department, Brisbane, Australia
  • ,
  • Damien Jolley, PhD

      Affiliations

    • School of Public Health & Community Medicine, The Alfred Hospital, Prahran, Australia

Purpose

The aims of this study were to collect data relating to radiation dose delivered by multidetector CT scanning at 10 hospitals and private practices in Queensland, Australia, and to test methods for dose optimization training, including audit feedback and didactic, face-to-face, small-group teaching of optimization techniques.

Methods

Ten hospital-based public and private sector radiology practices, with one CT scanner per site, volunteered for the project. Data were collected for a variety of common adult and pediatric CT scanning protocols, including tube current–time product, pitch, collimation, tube voltage, the use of dose modulation, and scan length. A one-day feedback and optimization training workshop was conducted for participating practices and was attended by the radiologist and medical imaging technologist responsible for the project at each site. Data were deidentified for the workshop presentation. During the feedback workshop, a detailed analysis and discussion of factors contributing to dose for higher dosing practices for each protocol occurred. The postoptimization training data collection phase allowed changes to median and spread of doses to be measured.

Results

During the baseline survey period, data for 1,208 scans were collected, and data from 1,153 scans were collected for the postoptimization dose survey for the 4 adult protocols (noncontrast brain CT, CT pulmonary angiography , CT lumbar spine, and CT urography). A mean decrease in effective dose was achieved with all scan protocols. Average reductions of 46% for brain CT, 28% for CT pulmonary angiography, 29% for CT lumbar spine, and 24% CT urography were calculated. It proved impossible to collect valid pediatric data from most sites, because of the small numbers of children presenting for multidetector CT, and phantom data were acquired during the preoptimization and postoptimization phase. Substantial phantom dose reductions were demonstrated at all sites.

Conclusion

Audit feedback and small-group teaching about optimization enabled clinically meaningful dose reduction for a variety of common adult scans. However, access to medical radiation physicists, assistance with time-consuming data collection, and technical support from a medical imaging technologist were costly and critical to the success of the program.

Key Words: Multidetector CT, optimization, dose audit

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1546-1440(10)00156-0

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2010.03.015

Refers to erratum:

  • Erratum

    Journal of the American College of Radiology April 2011 (Vol. 8, Issue 4, Page 291)

Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 7, Issue 8 , Pages 614-624, August 2010