Quality management, quality assurance, and quality control in medical physics.

The historic and ongoing evolution of the practice, technology, terminology, and implementation of programs related to quality in the medical radiological professions has given rise to the interchangeable use of the terms Quality Management (QM), Quality Assurance (QA), and Quality Control (QC) in the vernacular. This White Paper aims to provide clarification of QM, QA, and QC in medical physics context and guidance on how to use these terms appropriately in American College of Radiology (ACR) Practice Parameters and Technical Standards, generalizable to other guidance initiatives. The clarification of these nuanced terms in the radiology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine environments will not only boost the comprehensibility and usability of the Medical Physics Technical Standards and Practice Parameters, but also provide clarity and a foundation for ACR's clinical, physician-led Practice Parameters, which also use these important terms for monitoring equipment performance for safety and quality. Further, this will support the ongoing development of the professional practice of clinical medical physics by providing a common framework that distinguishes the various types of responsibilities borne by medical physicists and others in the medical radiological environment. Examples are provided of how QM, QA, and QC may be applied in the context of ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards.

U.S. Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Doses for 10 Pediatric CT Examinations.

Background Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) and achievable doses (ADs) were developed for the 10 most commonly performed pediatric CT examinations in the United States using the American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry. Purpose To develop robust, current, national DRLs and ADs for the 10 most commonly performed pediatric CT examinations as a function of patient age and size. Materials and Methods Data on 10 pediatric (ie, patients aged 18 years and younger) CT examinations performed between 2016 and 2020 at 1625 facilities were analyzed. For head and neck examinations, dose indexes were analyzed based on patient age; for body examinations, dose indexes were analyzed for patient age and effective diameter. Data from 1 543 535 examinations provided medians for AD and 75th percentiles for DRLs for volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE). Results Of all facilities analyzed, 66% of the facilities (1068 of 1625) were community hospitals, 16% (264 of 1625) were freestanding centers, 9.5% (154 of 1625) were academic facilities, and 3.5% (57 of 1625) were dedicated children's hospitals. Fifty-two percent of the patients (798 577 of 1 543 535) were boys, and 48% (744 958 of 1 543 535) were girls. The median age of patients was 14 years (boys, 13 years; girls, 15 years). The head was the most frequent anatomy examined with CT (876 655 of 1 543 535 examinations [57%]). For head without contrast material CT examinations, the age-based CTDIvol AD ranged from 19 to 46 mGy, and DRL ranged from 23 to 55 mGy, with both AD and DRL increasing with age. For body examinations, DRLs and ADs for size-based CTDIvol, SSDE, and DLP increased consistently with the patient's effective diameter. Conclusion Diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses as a function of patient age and effective diameter were developed for the 10 most commonly performed CT pediatric examinations using American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry data. These benchmarks can guide CT facilities in adjusting pediatric CT protocols and resultant doses for their patients. © RSNA, 2021 An earlier incorrect version appeared online. This article was corrected on October 29, 2021.

CT Phantom Evaluation of 67,392 American College of Radiology Accreditation Examinations: Implications for Opportunistic Screening of Osteoporosis Using CT.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether systematic bias in attenuation measurements occurs among CT scanners made by four major manufacturers and the relevance of this bias regarding opportunistic screening for osteoporosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Data on attenuation measurement accuracy were acquired using the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom and were evaluated in a blinded fashion for four CT manufacturers (8500 accreditation submissions for manufacturer A; 18,575 for manufacturer B; 8278 for manufacturer C; and 32,039 for manufacturer D). The attenuation value for water, acrylic (surrogate for trabecular bone), and Teflon (surrogate for cortical bone; Chemours) materials for an adult abdominal CT technique (120 kV, 240 mA, standard reconstruction algorithm) was used in the analysis. Differences in attenuation value across all manufacturers were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a post hoc test for pairwise comparisons. RESULTS. The mean attenuation value for water ranged from -0.3 to 2.7 HU, with highly significant differences among all manufacturers (p < 0.001). For the trabecular bone surrogate, differences in attenuation values across all manufacturers were also highly significant (p < 0.001), with mean values of 120.9 (SD, 3.5), 124.6 (3.3), 126.9 (4.4), and 123.9 (3.4) HU for manufacturers A, B, C, and D, respectively. For the cortical bone surrogate, differences in attenuation values across all manufacturers were also highly significant (p < 0.001), with mean values of 939.0 (14.2), 874.3 (13.3), 897.6 (11.3), and 912.7 (13.4) HU for manufacturers A, B, C, and D, respectively. CONCLUSION. CT scanners made by different manufacturers show systematic offsets in attenuation measurement when compared with each other. Knowledge of these off-sets is useful for optimizing the accuracy of opportunistic diagnosis of osteoporosis.

U.S. PET/CT and Gamma Camera Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Administered Activities for Noncardiac Nuclear Medicine Studies.

Existing surveys of radiopharmaceutical doses for U.S. nuclear medicine laboratories are of limited scope and size. Dose data are important because they can be used to benchmark individual laboratories, understand geographic variations in practice, and provide source data for societal guidelines and appropriateness criteria. Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) and achievable administered activities (AAAs) for 13 noncardiac adult gamma camera and PET/CT examinations were derived retrospectively from American College of Radiology accreditation data (January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017). The calculated DRL and AAA are consistent with previously published surveys. The distributions of radiopharmaceutical doses across facilities are in general consistent but show variation within a particular examination. Analysis of dose distribution suggests this variation results from differences in clinical protocols, educational gaps, and/or equipment factors. The AAA for the surveyed facilities exceeds dose ranges proposed in societal practice guidelines for several common nuclear medicine studies. Compared with similar surveys from Europe and Japan, geographic variation is observed, with some doses greater and others lower than used in the United States. Overall, radiopharmaceutical dose variation within the United States and internationally, and deviation from societal guidelines, imply that these dose-related benchmarks may be used to further standardize and improve clinical practice.

AAPM medical physics practice guideline 10.a.: Scope of practice for clinical medical physics.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline (MPPG) represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiation requires specific training, skills, and techniques as described in each document. As the review of the previous version of AAPM Professional Policy (PP)-17 (Scope of Practice) progressed, the writing group focused on one of the main goals: to have this document accepted by regulatory and accrediting bodies. After much discussion, it was decided that this goal would be better served through a MPPG. To further advance this goal, the text was updated to reflect the rationale and processes by which the activities in the scope of practice were identified and categorized. Lastly, the AAPM Professional Council believes that this document has benefitted from public comment which is part of the MPPG process but not the AAPM Professional Policy approval process. The following terms are used in the AAPM's MPPGs: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

AAPM medical physics practice guideline 6.a.: Performance characteristics of radiation dose index monitoring systems.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: •Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. •Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

AAPM/SNMMI Joint Task Force: report on the current state of nuclear medicine physics training.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) recognized the need for a review of the current state of nuclear  medicine physics training and the need to explore pathways for improving nuclear medicine physics training opportunities. For these reasons, the two organizations formed a joint AAPM/SNMMI Ad Hoc Task Force on Nuclear Medicine Physics  Training. The mission of this task force was to assemble a representative group of stakeholders to:• Estimate the demand for board-certified nuclear medicine physicists in the next 5-10 years,• Identify the critical issues related to supplying an adequate number of physicists who have received the appropriate level of training in nuclear medicine physics, and• Identify approaches that may be considered to facilitate the training of nuclear medicine physicists.As a result, a task force was appointed and chaired by an active member of both organizations that included representation from the AAPM, SNMMI, the American Board of Radiology (ABR), the American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (ABSNM), and the Commission for the Accreditation of Medical Physics Educational Programs (CAMPEP). The Task Force first met at the AAPM Annual Meeting in Charlotte in July 2012 and has met regularly face-to-face, online, and by conference calls. This manuscript reports the findings of the Task Force, as well as recommendations to achieve the stated mission.

Ranking the Relative Importance of Image Quality Features in CT by Consensus Survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to determine consensus opinions from subspecialty radiologists and imaging physicists on the relative importance of image quality features in CT. METHODS: A prospective survey of subspecialty radiologists and medical physicists was conducted to collect consensus opinions on the relative importance of ten image quality features: axial sharpness, blooming, contrast, longitudinal sharpness, low contrast axial sharpness, metal artifact, motion, noise magnitude, noise texture, and streaking. The survey was first sent to subspecialty radiologists in volunteer leadership roles in the American College of Radiology and Radiological Society of North America, thereafter relying on snowball sampling. Surveyed subspecialties were abdominal, cardiac, emergency, musculoskeletal, neuro, pediatric, and thoracic radiology, and medical physics. Individual respondents' ratings were normalized for calculation of mean normalized ratings and priority rankings for each feature within subspecialties. Also calculated were intraclass correlation coefficients across image quality features within subspecialties, and analysis of variance across subspecialties within each feature. RESULTS: Most subspecialties had moderate to excellent intraclass agreement. For every radiology subspecialty except musculoskeletal, motion was the most important image quality feature. There was agreement across subspecialties that axial sharpness and contrast are only moderately important. There was disagreement across subspecialties on the relative importance of noise magnitude. Blooming was highly important to cardiac radiologists, and noise texture was highly important to musculoskeletal radiologists. CONCLUSION: Image quality preferences differ based on clinical tasks and challenges in each anatomical radiology subspecialty. CT image analysis and development of quantitative measures of quality and protocol optimization-and related policy initiatives-should be specific to radiology subspecialty.

Automated Contouring of Contrast and Noncontrast Computed Tomography Liver Images With Fully Convolutional Networks.

PURPOSE: The deformable nature of the liver can make focal treatment challenging and is not adequately addressed with simple rigid registration techniques. More advanced registration techniques can take deformations into account (eg, biomechanical modeling) but require segmentations of the whole liver for each scan, which is a time-intensive process. We hypothesize that fully convolutional networks can be used to rapidly and accurately autosegment the liver, removing the temporal bottleneck for biomechanical modeling. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Manual liver segmentations on computed tomography scans from 183 patients treated at our institution and 30 scans from the Medical Image Computing & Computer Assisted Intervention challenges were collected for this study. Three architectures were investigated for rapid automated segmentation of the liver (VGG-16, DeepLabv3 +, and a 3-dimensional UNet). Fifty-six cases were set aside as a final test set for quantitative model evaluation. Accuracy of the autosegmentations was assessed using Dice similarity coefficient and mean surface distance. Qualitative evaluation was also performed by 3 radiation oncologists on 50 independent cases with previously clinically treated liver contours. RESULTS: The mean (minimum-maximum) mean surface distance for the test groups with the final model, DeepLabv3 +, were as follows: µContrast(N = 17): 0.99 mm (0.47-2.2), µNon_Contrast(N = 19)l: 1.12 mm (0.41-2.87), and µMiccai(N = 30)t: 1.48 mm (0.82-3.96). The qualitative evaluation showed that 30 of 50 autosegmentations (60%) were preferred to manual contours (majority voting) in a blinded comparison, and 48 of 50 autosegmentations (96%) were deemed clinically acceptable by at least 1 reviewing physician. CONCLUSIONS: The autosegmentations were preferred compared with manually defined contours in the majority of cases. The ability to rapidly segment the liver with high accuracy achieved in this investigation has the potential to enable the efficient integration of biomechanical model-based registration into a clinical workflow.

Evaluation of an automated grid artifact detection system for quality control in digital mammography.

PURPOSE: Grid artifacts occur in digital mammography when synchronization between the grid assembly and generator is not achieved, including when malfunctions occur in the grid assembly or generator subsystems. Such artifacts are not explicitly monitored or evaluated by existing mammography quality control programs. In this study, we developed an automated method for quantifying the presence of grid artifacts in two-dimensional (2D) digital mammography images and assessed its utility as a supplement to existing quality control programs. METHODS: Four digital mammography systems (Hologic Dimensions 3D 5000) were configured to automatically transfer 2D images to a server where the strength of the grid pattern, γmax , was quantified using a template-matching algorithm and stored in amySQL database. This analysis was performed on both American College of Radiology (ACR) phantom and clinical images. Changes in γmax were compared with image quality and service records to establish preliminary action limits for physicist intervention for each type of image. These action limits were applied around selected service events to evaluate their clinical utility. RESULTS: All systems exhibited a gradual increase in γmax in ACR phantom images prior to having identical major components of the generator subsystem replaced, despite the absence of visible gridlines in the images. Retrospective analysis of phantom images suggested that physicists should consider AEC testing when γ max exceeds 0.050 and that clinical image quality may be affected when γ max exceeds 0.060. Eighteen of 19 visible grid artifacts were identified using a threshold γ max value of 0.065 in clinical images. Warning limits that indicate abnormal operation before visible degradation in image quality were also established. These warning limits were 0.046 and 0.041 for the 24 × 29 cm and 18 × 24 cm paddles, respectively. Specific malfunctions in the generator and grid subsystems can be detected by applying these limits. CONCLUSIONS: Automated monitoring of γ max provides useful information about the status of digital mammography units without affecting clinical operations. When used with appropriate action limits, this type of monitoring can help physicists identify specific equipment malfunctions before they would be detected by other quality control tests and before they affect clinical images.

Radiology stewardship and quality improvement: the process and costs of implementing a CT radiation dose optimization committee in a medium-sized community hospital system.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to measure the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary CT dose optimization committee and estimate its costs and to describe a radiation stewardship quality improvement initiative in one CT department at a medium-sized community hospital system that used a participatory design committee methodology. METHODS: A CT dose optimization committee was conceived, funded, and formed, consisting of the following stakeholders: radiologists, technologists, consultant medical physicists, and an administrator. Volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and repeat rate were monitored for 1 month, for one scan type, during which iterative protocol adjustments were made through committee interaction. Effects on repeat rate and CTDIvol were quantified and benchmarked against national diagnostic reference levels after retrospective medical record review of 100 consecutive patients before and after the intervention. Labor hours were reported and wage resources estimated. RESULTS: Over 3 months, the committee met in person twice and exchanged 128 e-mails in establishing a process for protocol improvement and measurement of success. Repeat rate was reduced from 13% (13 of 100) to 0% (0 of 100). Scans meeting the ACR reference level for CTDIvol (75 mGy) improved by 34% (38 of 100 before, 51 of 100 after; Fisher's exact 2-tailed P = .09), and those meeting ACR pass/fail criterion (80 mGy) improved by 29% (58 of 100 before, 75 of 100 after; Fisher's exact 2-tailed P = .01). Committee evolution and work, and protocol development and implementation, required 57 person-hours, at an estimated labor cost of $12,488. CONCLUSIONS: An efficient process was established as a proof of concept for the use of a multidisciplinary committee to reduce patient radiation dose, repeat rate, and variability in image quality. The committee and process ultimately improved the quality of patient care, fostered a culture of safety and ongoing quality improvement, and calculated costs for such an endeavor.