Advertisement

Medical Imaging Safety in Global Health Radiology

  • James T. DobbinsIIIEmail author
  • Donald P. Frush
  • Christopher J. N. Kigongo
  • James R. MacFall
  • Robert E. ReimanJr
  • Gregg E. Trahey
  • David P. Bradway
Chapter

Abstract

Attention to matters of safety is important in any imaging facility. In the context of low- and middle-income countries, limited resources may complicate the attempt to set up and operate an imaging facility with the highest standards of safety, but it is important to see that all applicable safety measures are nonetheless carried out. Imaging safety involves several general principles, including the need to minimize radiation exposure consistent with answering the clinical question at hand. Safety considerations relevant to patients, staff, and the general public must be addressed. Considerations specific to individual modalities include appropriate limitations on exposure in x-ray and CT imaging, attention to magnetic field hazards in magnetic resonance imaging, proper preparation and control of radionuclides in nuclear medicine, and avoidance of excessive prenatal imaging procedures with ultrasound. An important general safety consideration for all imaging modalities is assuring proper clinical utilization, which includes factors such as not performing imaging procedures without medical referral and supervision, attention to image quality to ensure procedures are not repeated unnecessarily, and carefully considering the clinical appropriateness of any requested imaging procedure. Training and credentialing of staff is of utmost importance, and includes staff who design, prepare, and evaluate a new imaging facility as well as medical staff who acquire, order, or review images. Ensuring imaging safety requires the input of a team of experts, including trained and qualified medical physicists, health physicists, radiation safety officers, clinical safety personnel, installation and service personnel, radiologic technologists, and radiologists. With appropriate attention to safety, diagnostic imaging is a useful component of healthcare services in resource-limited regions.

Keywords

Imaging safety Radiation safety Radiography Computed tomography Magnetic resonance imaging Ultrasound Nuclear medicine Utilization Shielding Health physics Trauma Infectious disease control Image quality Radiation dose Clinical safety 

References

  1. 1.
    Bogdonavich W. Radiation overdoses point up dangers of CT scans [Internet]. New York Times. 2009 Oct 15 [cited 2012 Jul]. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16radiation.html.
  2. 2.
    Clark C. CA governor signs radiation overdose bill into law [Internet]. HealthLeaders Media. 2010 Oct 1 [cited 2012 Jul]. Available from: http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/page-3/QUA-257182/CA-Governor-Signs-Radiation-Overdose-Bill-into-Law.
  3. 3.
    Balter S, Hopewell JW, Miller DL, Wagner LK, Zelefsky MJ. Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients’ skin and hair. Radiology. 2010;254:326–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    NCRP. Report number 160: ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Bethesda: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Townsend BA, Callahan MJ, Zurakowski D, Taylor GA. Has pediatric CT at Children’s hospitals reached its peak? Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1194–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Larson DB, Johnson LW, Schnell BM, Salisbury SR, Forman HP. National trends in CT use in the emergency department: 1995-2007. Radiology. 2011;258:164–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Menoch MJA, Hirsh DA, Khan NS. Trends in computed tomography utilization in the pediatric emergency department. Pediatrics. 2012;129:e690–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Williams A, et al. The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167:700–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Wildman-Tobriner B, Strauss K. Bhargavan-Chatfield, et al. using the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry to evaluate practice patterns and radiation dose estimates of pediatric body CT. Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(3):641–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dorfman AL, Fazel R, Einstein AJ, Applegate KE, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, et al. Use of medical imaging procedures with ionizing radiation in children: a population-based study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc. 2001;165:458–64.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Vassileva J, Rehani MM, Applegate K, et al. IAEA survey of paediatric computed tomography practice in 40 countries in Asia, Europe, Latin America and Africa: procedures and protocols. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:623–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukemia and brain tumors: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2012;380:499–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mathews J, Forsythe A, Brady Z. Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ. 2013;346:f2360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang WY, Muo CH, Lin CY, et al. Paediatric head CT scan and subsequent risk of malignancy and benign brain tumour: a nation-wide population-based cohort study. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:2354–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krille L, Dreger S, Schindel R, et al. Risk of cancer incidence before the age of 15 years after exposure to ionising radiation from computed tomography: results from a German cohort study. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2015;54:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Journy N, Rehel J-L, Ducou Le Pointe H. Are the studies on cancer risk from CT scans biased by indication: elements of answer from a large-scale cohort study in France. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:185–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boice JD. Radiation epidemiology and recent paediatric computed tomography studies. Annals ICRP. 2015;44:236–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    NCRP. Report number 147: structural shielding design for medical X-ray imaging facilities. Bethesda: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2004.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dobbins JT III. Image quality metrics for digital systems. In: Van Metter RL, Beutel J, Kundel H, editors. Handbook of medical imaging, vol. 1. Bellingham: SPIE Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ranger NT, Samei E, Dobbins JT III, Ravin CE. Assessment of detective quantum efficiency: intercomparison of a recently introduced international standard with prior methods. Radiology. 2007;243:785–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Samei E, Bisset GS III, Ranger NT, Lo JY, Dobbins JT III, Maxfield C, et al. Image quality and dose in digital radiography. RSNA/AAPM educational module. RSNA Publications; Oak Brook, Chicago, IL. 2009.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Samei E, Ranger NT, Dobbins JT III, Ravin CE. Effective dose efficiency: an application-specific metric of quality and dose for digital chest radiography systems. Physics Med Biol. 2011;56:5099–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hricak H, Brenner DJ, Adelstein SJ, Frush DP, Hall EJ, Howell RW, et al. Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge. Radiology. 2011;258:889–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fuchs VR, Sox HC. Physicians’ views of the relative importance of thirty medical innovations. Health Aff. 2001;20:30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hendee WR, Becker GJ, Borgstede JP, Bosma J, Casarella WJ, Erickson BA, et al. Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology. 2010;257:240–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Frush DP. Categorical course in physics: radiation dose and image quality for pediatric CT: clinical considerations. Radiolog Soc North Am. 2006:167–82.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Strauss KJ, Goske MJ, Kaste SC, Bulas D, Frush DP, Butler P, et al. Image gently: ten steps you can take to optimize image quality and lower CT dose for pediatric patients. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:868–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nievelstein RAJ, van Dam I, van der Molen A. Multidetector CT in children: current concepts and dose reduction strategies. Pediatr Radiol. 2010;40:1324–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marin D, Nelson RC, Rubin GD, Schindera ST. Body CT: technical advances for improving safety. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Frush DP. Chapter 26. MDCT in children: scan techniques and contrast issues. In: Kalra MK, Saini S, Rubin GD, editors. MDCT: from protocols to practice. Milan: Springer; 2008. p. 333–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    American College of Radiology. ACR manual on contrast media, Version 8 [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2012 Jul]. Available from: http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/Contrast%20Manual/FullManual.pdf.
  34. 34.
    Dillman JR, Strouse PJ, Ellis JH, Cohan RH, Jan SC. Incidence and severity of acute allergic-like reactions to IV nonionic iodinated contrast material in children. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1643–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Paulson EK, Weaver C, Ho LM, Martin L, Li J, Darsie J, Frush DP. Conventional and reduced radiation dose of 16-MDCT for detection of nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:151–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kim S, Frush DP, Yoshizumi TT. Bismuth shielding in CT: support for use in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2010;40:1739–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang J, Duan X, Christner JA, Leng S, Yu L, McCollough CH. Radiation dose reduction to the breast in thoracic CT: comparison of bismuth shielding, organ-based tube current modulation, and use of a globally decreased tube current. Med Phys. 2011;38:6084–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, Borgstede JP, Bradley WG Jr, Froelich JW, et al. ACR guidance document for safe MR practices. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1447–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    Reference manual for magnetic resonance safety, implants and devices: 2012 Edition (620+ pages; ISBN-10, 0-9746410-8-1; ISBN-13, 978-0-9746410-8-9).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Orenstein BW. Gadolinium on the brain: curiosity or cause for concern? Radiol Today. 2016;17:20–3.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine/National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association. Acoustic output measurement standard for diagnostic ultrasound equipment. Laurel: AIUM Publications; 1998.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 101: ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:451–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2007. AIUM practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations. Available from: http://www.aium.org/publications/clinical/obstetric.pdf.
  45. 45.
    Lin YC, Dong SL, Yeh YH, Wu YS, Lan GY, Liu CM, Chu TC. Emergency management and infection control in a radiology department during an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome. Br J Radiol. 2005;78:606–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Orenstein BW. MRI and MRSA? — infection control in the imaging room. Radiol Today. 2008;9(21):14.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    The Joint Commission. National patient safety goals 2011-12 [Internet]. 2011 Aug 4 [cited 2012 Jul]. Available from: http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/2011-2012_npsg_presentation_final_8-4-11.pdf.
  48. 48.
    Delaney LR, Gunderman LR. Hand hygiene. Radiology. 2008;246:15–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ott LK, Hoffman LA, Hravnak M. Intrahospital transport to the radiology department: risk for adverse events, nursing surveillance, utilization of a MET and practice implications. J Radiol Nurs. 2011;30(2):49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Frush DP, Frush KS. The ALARA concept in pediatric imaging: building bridges between radiology and emergency medicine: consensus conference on imaging safety and quality for children in the emergency setting. Pediatr Radiol. 2008;38(Suppl 4):S629–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    American College of Radiology [Internet]. Radiology safety. [cited 2012 Jul]. Available from: http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Radiology-Safety/.
  52. 52.
    International Atomic Energy Agency [Internet]. Radiation protection of patients. [cited 2012 Jul]. Available from: https://rpop.iaea.org/RPoP/RPoP/Content/.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • James T. DobbinsIII
    • 1
    Email author
  • Donald P. Frush
    • 2
    • 3
  • Christopher J. N. Kigongo
    • 4
  • James R. MacFall
    • 2
    • 3
  • Robert E. ReimanJr
    • 3
    • 5
  • Gregg E. Trahey
    • 3
    • 6
  • David P. Bradway
    • 6
  1. 1.Office of Duke Kunshan University Programs, Medical Physics Graduate Program, Departments of Radiology, Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Duke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Medical Physics Graduate ProgramDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Department of Medicine (Gastroenterology)Duke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Radiation Safety DivisionDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Department of Biomedical EngineeringDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations