Correlating the Radiological Assessment of Patient Motion with the Incidence of Repeat Sequences Documented by Log Files.

OBJECTIVE: To correlate a radiological assessment of MR motion artifacts with the incidence of repeated sequences and delays derived from modality log files (MLFs) and investigate the suitability of log files for quantifying the operational impact of patient motion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An experienced, blinded neuroradiologist retrospectively evaluated one full calendar month of sequentially obtained clinical MR exams of the head and/or brain for the presence of motion artifacts using a previously defined clinical grading scale. MLF data were analyzed to extract the occurrence of repeated sequences during the examinations. Statistical analysis included the determination of 95% confidence intervals for repetition ratios, and Welch's t-test to exclude the hypothesis of equal means for different groups of sequences. RESULTS: A total of 213 examinations were evaluated, comprising 1681 MLF-documented sequences, from which 1580 were archived. Radiological motion assessment scores (0, none to 4, severe) were assigned to each archived sequence. Higher motion scores correlated with a higher MLF-derived repetition probability, reflected by the average motion scores assigned to sequences that would be repeated (group 1, mean=2.5), those that are a repeat (group 2, mean=1.9), and those that are not repeated (group 3, mean=1.1) within an exam. The hypothesis of equal means was rejected with P = 5.9 × 10-5 for groups 1 and 2, P = 9.39 × 10-16 for groups 1 and 3, and P = 1.55 × 10-12 for groups 2 and 3. The repetition probability and associated time loss could be quantified for individual sequence types. The total time loss due to repeat sequence acquisition derived from MLFs was greater than four hours. CONCLUSION: Log file data may help assess patterns of scanner and exam performance and may be useful in identifying pitfalls to diagnostic imaging in a clinical environment, particularly with respect to patient motion.

Avoiding MRI-Related Accidents: A Practical Approach to Implementing MR Safety.

MRI is a ubiquitous medical imaging technology typically using superconductivity to generate a strong, homogeneous, and generally ceaseless magnetic field. MRI and its magnetic field pose many safety hazards, including magnetic forces on metals, tissue heating and burns, nerve stimulation, bioeffects, acoustic noise, and contrast agent complications. The primary concern is that a wide variety of patients, staff members, technologists, and physicians can approach the incessant magnetic field, creating great potential for accidents that could occur if metals from the environment, adornments, implants, and other unintended sources are also present in or near the field. Many accidents have occurred and are occasionally reported in the United States and countries all over the world. Through carefully structured oversight and the establishment of strict guidelines regarding access, responsibilities, and training, these risks can be mitigated, and accidents can be prevented. Fortunately, there is currently a wide variety of resources available to facilitate the successful implementation of an effective MRI safety program. This article presents a general overview of and the authors' experience with an MRI safety program in terms of risk management and training. The MR safety program requirements and regulations in the United States devised by The Joint Commission and the ACR are also discussed. With these resources and a carefully selected team, the risk for MRI-related accidents can be vastly reduced if not completely eliminated.

Toward Quantifying the Prevalence, Severity, and Cost Associated With Patient Motion During Clinical MR Examinations.

PURPOSE: To assess the prevalence, severity, and cost estimates associated with motion artifacts identified on clinical MR examinations, with a focus on the neuroaxis. METHODS: A retrospective review of 1 randomly selected full calendar week of MR examinations (April 2014) was conducted for the detection of significant motion artifacts in examinations performed at a single institution on 3 different MR scanners. A base-case cost estimate was computed from recently available institutional data, and correlated with sequence time and severity of motion artifacts. RESULTS: A total of 192 completed clinical examinations were reviewed. Significant motion artifacts were identified on sequences in 7.5% of outpatient and 29.4% of inpatient and/or emergency department MR examinations. The prevalence of repeat sequences was 19.8% of total MRI examinations. The base-case cost estimate yielded a potential cost to the hospital of $592 per hour in lost revenue due to motion artifacts. Potential institutional average costs borne (revenue forgone) of approximately $115,000 per scanner per year may affect hospitals, owing to motion artifacts (univariate sensitivity analysis suggested a lower bound of $92,600, and an upper bound of $139,000). CONCLUSIONS: Motion artifacts represent a frequent cause of MR image degradation, particularly for inpatient and emergency department patients, resulting in substantial costs to the radiology department. Greater attention and resources should be directed toward providing practical solutions to this dilemma.