Search

During the last 15 years, peer review has been widely incorporated into radiology quality improvement programs. However, current implementations are variable and carry concerns, including subjectivity of numerical scores and a sense of merely satisfying regulatory requirements. The Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) Quality and Safety Committee sought to evaluate the state of peer review programs in pediatric radiology practices, including implementation methods, perceived functions, strengths and weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement. We distributed an online 16-question survey to SPR members. Questions pertained to the type of peer review system, the use of numerical scores and comments, how feedback on discordances is given and received, and the use of peer learning conferences. We collected 219 responses (15% of survey invitations), 80% of which were from children's hospitals. Fifty percent of respondents said they use a picture archiving and communication system (PACS)-integrated peer review system. Comment-enhanced feedback for interpretive discordances was either very important or somewhat important to performance improvement in 86% of responses, compared to 48% with a similar perception of numerical scores. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they either rarely or never check their numerical scores, and 82% either strongly or somewhat agreed that comments are more effective feedback than numerical scores. Ninety-three percent either strongly or somewhat agreed that peer learning conferences would be beneficial to their practice. Forty-eight percent thought that their current peer review system should be modified. Survey results demonstrate that peer review systems in pediatric radiology practices are implemented variably, and nearly half of respondents believe their systems should be modified. Most respondents prefer feedback in the form of comments and peer learning conferences, which are thought to be more beneficial for performance improvement than numerical scores.

CT scans are powerful tools used in the care of pediatric patients daily. Yet the increased use of CT warrants careful monitoring. This article defines diagnostic reference levels and how they can be used to guide practice. Once a facility has adapted its techniques and protocols to fall within diagnostic reference levels or target values, the facility can expand its quality-improvement efforts to include a new concept, diagnostic reference ranges (DRRs). DRRs take into account the subjective image quality of the examination and provide a minimum estimated patient dose, below which accurate interpretation of an image might be difficult, and an upper estimated dose, above which the patient dose may be higher than necessary. This paper also describes how the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry can be used by a facility as a continuous quality improvement tool to monitor and manage appropriate patient dose.

Recently, the state of California enacted a law requiring radiologists to record the radiation dose that each patient receives for a CT scan. Failure to do so is penalized by law. This law becomes effective in July 2012. By July 2013, every facility that performs CT scans must become accredited by one of three professional groups. This report discusses the role that legislation is playing in the practice of medicine in regard to CT practice. Inherent in this discussion is the assumption that pediatric radiologists know the right dose that a child should receive for a specific clinical indication. But do we really know the answer to this? Compared to the European radiology community, the United States radiology community lags in this regard. This paper defines diagnostic reference levels (DRL) and reviews the history of DRL in the United States compared to that in the European community and the progress by the American College of Radiology's National Radiology Data Registry (NRDR) to establish national registries. The establishment of the first pediatric Quality Improvement Registry in CT Scans in Children (QuIRCC) and its progress to date will be discussed.

Interventional radiology techniques to treat oncological disease have already shown value in adults. The adoption and development of interventional oncology (IO) in children have been more limited and challenging. This relates to the approval process for new devices and agents, oncology group protocol limitations and the inherent hesitation of trying new treatments in children. This paper will discuss how new procedures are developed and approved, and the new therapies that will become available to better treat pediatric malignancies. Bringing the benefits of IO to children will require initiative on the part of pediatric diagnostic and interventional radiologists as well as the cooperation of our clinical colleagues.

As interventional procedures have become progressively more sophisticated and lengthy, the potential for high patient radiation dose has increased. Staff exposure arises from patient scatter, so steps to minimize patient dose will in turn reduce operator and staff dose. The practice of ALARA in an interventional radiology (IR) suite, therefore, requires careful attention to technical detail in order to reduce patient dose. The choice of imaging modality should minimize radiation when and where possible. In this paper practical steps are outlined to reduce patient dose. Further details are included that specifically reduce operator exposure. Challenges unique to pediatric intervention are reviewed. Reference is made to experience from modern pediatric interventional suites. Given the potential for high exposures, the practice of ALARA is a team responsibility. Various measures are outlined for consideration when implementing a quality assurance (QA) program for an IR service.

This paper discusses pediatric image quality and radiation dose considerations in state-of-the-art fluoroscopic imaging equipment. Although most fluoroscopes are capable of automatically providing good image quality on infants, toddlers, and small children, excessive radiation dose levels can result from design deficiencies of the imaging device or inappropriate configuration of the equipment's capabilities when imaging small body parts. Important design features and setup choices at installation and during the clinical use of the imaging device can improve image quality and reduce radiation exposure levels in pediatric patients. Pediatric radiologists and cardiologists, with the help of medical physicists, need to understand the issues involved in creating good image quality at reasonable pediatric patient doses. The control of radiographic technique factors by the generator of the imaging device must provide a large dynamic range of mAs values per exposure pulse during both fluoroscopy and image recording as a function of patient girth, which is the thickness of the patient in the posterior-anterior projection at the umbilicus (less than 10 cm to greater than 30 cm). The range of pulse widths must be limited to less than 10 ms in children to properly freeze patient motion. Variable rate pulsed fluoroscopy can be leveraged to reduce radiation dose to the patient and improve image quality. Three focal spots with nominal sizes of 0.3 mm to 1 mm are necessary on the pediatric unit. A second, lateral imaging plane might be necessary because of the child's limited tolerance of contrast medium. Spectral and spatial beam shaping can improve image quality while reducing the radiation dose. Finally, the level of entrance exposure to the image receptor of the fluoroscope as a function of operator choices, of added filter thickness, of selected pulse rate, of the selected field-of-view and of the patient girth all must be addressed at installation.