A primer for pediatric radiologists on infection control in an era of COVID-19.

Pediatric radiology departments across the globe face unique challenges in the midst of the current COVID-19 pandemic that have not been addressed in professional guidelines. Providing a safe environment for personnel while continuing to deliver optimal care to patients is feasible when abiding by fundamental recommendations. In this article, we review current infection control practices across the multiple pediatric institutions represented on the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) Quality and Safety committee. We discuss the routes of infectious transmission and appropriate transmission-based precautions, in addition to exploring strategies to optimize personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies. This work serves as a summary of current evidence-based recommendations for infection control, and current best practices specific to pediatric radiologists.

If Disney ran your pediatric radiology department: a different approach to improving the patient and family experience.

The concepts behind the patient experience and patient- and family-centered care have their roots in the 1980s. Prioritization and implementation of programs to improve the patient experience have received increased attention since the passage of legislation tying health insurance reimbursement to patient satisfaction surveys. Radiology has joined these efforts with the Radiology 3.0 initiative, and departments are applying established patient- and family-centered care models and quality-improvement methods to improve patient experience and satisfaction. While these approaches are valuable, they should be supplemented with more qualitative, humanistic and empathetic approaches. We present a "Disney model" for improving the patient and family experience in pediatric radiology and examples of practical implementation.

Survey of peer review programs among pediatric radiologists: report from the SPR Quality and Safety Committee.

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.

Computed Tomography Artifact Created by Air in the X-ray Tube Oil.

A subtle artifact of patchy hypodensities in computed tomography images of the head mimicked acute or subacute cerebral infarct. The cause of the artifact was air in the oil of the x-ray tube. The artifact manifested only when the acquisition parameters included a rotation time of 0.5 second and a gantry tilt angle of 11 to 20 degrees. Routine quality control testing did not detect nonuniformities in the water phantom.

Features of large cell transformation of indolent lymphomas as observed on sequential PET/CT.

OBJECTIVE: Detection of large cell transformation (LCT) has been reported with the increasing use of PET/computed tomography (CT) in patients with indolent lymphomas. However, there is little information on PET/CT characteristics, specifically, the distribution of lesion maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) within a patient, or SUV(max) changes before and after LCT. Our objectives were to compare SUV(max) values and distribution between nontransformed and LCT patients; to compare SUV(max) of LCT and nontransformed lesions in patients with documented focal transformation; and to measure the SUV(max) changes in patients before and after LCT. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients with LCT (n=29)compared with nontransformed (n=41), and comparison of LCT and nontransformed lesions within patients and over time. RESULTS: On average, the highest SUV(max) was greater in LCT patients than in nontransformed patients. In addition, there was a wider range of SUV(max) values in the LCT group compared with the nontransformed group (P<0.05). The median ratio of the SUV(max) of 12 LCT to nontransformed biopsy-proven lesions in the same patient was 4.3, P value of less than 0.05 (range 2.6-15.5). In 10 of 12 patients it was greater than or equal to 3. No change in highest SUV(max) and distribution was shown on serial PET in untreated nontransformed patients. CONCLUSION: LCT is often focal and is associated with higher SUV(max) than nontransformed. The emergence of a focus with SUV(max) three times or higher than others on a single scan, or that has tripled or more in value on serial scans, should raise suspicion for LCT.