The QuADRANT study: Current status and recommendations for improving uptake and implementation of clinical audit of medical radiological procedures in Europe. The radiotherapy perspective.

BACKGROUND: QuADRANT was a research project funded by the European Commission to evaluate clinical audit uptake and implementation across Europe, with an emphasis on clinical audit as mandated within the BSSD (Basic Safety Standards Directive). AIM: Focusing on the QuADRANT objectives - to obtain an overview of European clinical audit activity; identify good practices, resources, barriers and challenges; provide guidance and recommendations going forwards; identify the potential for European Union action on quality and safety focusing on the field of radiotherapy. RESULTS: A pan-European survey, expert interviews and a literature review conducted within the framework of the QuADRANT project indicated that developments in national clinical audit infrastructure are required. While in radiotherapy, there is a strong tradition and high level of experience of dosimetry audits and well-established practice through the IAEA's QUATRO audits, few countries have a well-established comprehensive clinical audit programme or international/national initiatives on tumour specific clinical audits. Even if sparse, the experience from countries with established system of quality audits can be used as role-models for national professional societies to promote clinical audit implementation. However, resource allocation and national prioritisation of clinical audit are needed in many countries. National and international societies should take the initiative to promote and facilitate training and resources (guidelines, experts, courses) for clinical audits. Enablers used to enhance clinical audit participation are not widely employed. Development of hospital accreditation programmes can facilitate clinical audit uptake. An active and formalised role for patients in clinical audit practice and policy development is recommended. Because there is a persisting variation in European awareness of BSSD clinical audit requirements, work is needed to improve dissemination of information on the legislative requirements relating to clinical audit in the BSSD and in relation to inspection processes. The aim is to ensure these include clinical audit and that they encompass all clinics and specialties involved in medical applications using ionising radiation. CONCLUSION: QuADRANT provided an overarching view of clinical audit practice in Europe, with all its related aspects. Unfortunately, it showed that the awareness of the BSSD requirements for clinical audit are highly variable. Therefore, there is an urgent need to dedicate efforts towards ensuring that regulatory inspections also incorporate an assessment of clinical audit program(s), affecting all aspects of clinical work and specialties involved in patient exposure to ionising radiation.

QuADRANT: a study on uptake and implementation of clinical audit of medical radiological procedures in Europe-expert recommendations for improvement, endorsed by the ESR.

BACKGROUND: QuADRANT was a study funded by the European Commission to evaluate clinical audit uptake and implementation across Europe, with an emphasis on clinical audit as mandated within the BSSD (Basic Safety Standards Directive). AIMS: QuADRANT objectives-obtain an overview of European clinical audit activity; identify good practices and resources, barriers and challenges; provide guidance and recommendations going forwards; identify the potential for European Union action on quality and safety in the three core project specialties, radiology, radiotherapy and nuclear medicine. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: QuADRANT identified that developments in national clinical audit infrastructure are required. National professional societies can be pivotal in improving clinical audit implementation, but resource allocation and national prioritisation of clinical audit are needed in many countries. Lack of staff time and expertise are also barriers. Enablers to enhance clinical audit participation are not widely employed. Development of hospital accreditation programmes can facilitate clinical audit uptake. An active and formalised role for patients in clinical audit practice and policy development is recommended. There is persisting variation in European awareness of BSSD clinical audit requirements. Work is needed to improve dissemination of information on the legislative requirements relating to clinical audit in the BSSD and in relation to inspection processes to ensure these include clinical audit and that they encompass all clinics and specialties involved in medical applications using ionising radiation. CONCLUSION: QuADRANT provides an important step towards enhancing clinical audit uptake and implementation across Europe and improving patient safety and outcomes.

Education and training in radiation protection in Europe: results from the EURAMED Rocc-n-Roll project survey.

PURPOSE: To analyse the existing radiation protection (RP) education and training (E&T) capabilities in the European Union and identify associated needs, problems and challenges. METHOD: An online survey was disseminated via the EURAMED Rocc-n-Roll consortium network and prominent medical societies in the field of radiological research. The survey sections analyse the RP E&T during undergraduate, residency/internship and continuous professional development; RP E&T problems and legal implementation. Differences were analysed by European geographic regions, profession, years of professional experience and main area of practice/research. RESULTS: The majority of the 550 respondents indicated that RP topics are part of undergraduate curricula in all courses for their profession and country (55%); however, hands-on practical training is not included according to 30% of the respondents. The lack of E&T, practical aspects in current E&T, and mandatory continuing E&T were considered the major problems. The legal requirement that obtained higher implementation score was the inclusion of the practical aspects of medical radiological procedures on education (86%), and lower score was obtained for the inclusion of RP E&T on medical and dental school curriculums (61%). CONCLUSIONS: A heterogeneity in RP E&T during undergraduate, residency/internship and continuous professional development is evident across Europe. Differences were noted per area of practice/research, profession, and European geographic region. A large variation in RP E&T problem rating was also obtained.

Justification of CT practices across Europe: results of a survey of national competent authorities and radiology societies.

OBJECTIVES: Published literature on justification of computed tomography (CT) examinations in Europe is sparse but demonstrates consistent sub-optimal application. As part of the EU initiated CT justification project, this work set out to capture CT justification practices across Europe. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire consisting of mostly closed multiple-choice questions was distributed to national competent authorities and to presidents of European radiology societies in EU member states as well as Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and the UK (n = 31). RESULTS: Fifty-one results were received from 30 European countries. Just 47% (n = 24) stated that advance justification of individual CT examinations is performed by a medical practitioner. Radiologists alone mostly (n = 27, 53%) perform daily justification of CT referrals although this is a shared responsibility in many countries. Imaging referral guidelines are widely available although just 13% (n = 6) consider them in daily use. Four countries (Cyprus, Ireland, Sweden, UK) reported having them embedded within clinical decision support systems. Justification of new practices with CT is mostly regulated (77%) although three countries (Belgium, Iceland and Portugal) reported not having any national system in place for generic justification. Health screening with CT was reported by seven countries as part of approved screening programmes and by eight countries outside. When performed, CT justification audits were reported to improve CT justification rates. CONCLUSIONS: CT justification practices vary across Europe with less than 50% using advance justification and a minority having clinical decision support systems in place. CT for health screening purposes is not currently widely used in Europe.

Education and training in radiation protection in Europe: an analysis from the EURAMED rocc-n-roll project.

BACKGROUND: A Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis was performed to understand the status quo of education and training in radiation protection (RP) and to develop a coordinated European approach to RP training needs based on stakeholder consensus and existing activities in the field. Fourteen team members represented six European professional societies, one European voluntary organisation, two international healthcare organisations and five professions, namely: Medical Physicists; Nuclear Medicine Physicians; Radiologists; Radiation Oncologists and Radiographers. Four subgroups analysed the "Strengths", "Weaknesses", "Opportunities" and "Threats" related to E&T in RP developed under previous European Union (EU) programmes and on the Guidelines on Radiation Protection Education and Training of Medical Professionals in the EU. RESULTS: Consensus agreement identified four themes for strengths and opportunities, namely: (1) existing structures and training recommendations; (2) RP training needs assessment and education & training (E&T) model(s) development; (3) E&T dissemination, harmonisation, and accreditation; (4) financial supports. Weaknesses and Threats analysis identified two themes: (1) awareness and prioritisation at a national/global level and (2) awareness and prioritisation by healthcare professional groups and researchers. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of effective implementation of RP principles in daily practice was identified. EuRnR strategic planning needs to consider processes at European, national and local levels. Success is dependent upon efficient governance structures and expert leadership. Financial support is required to allow the stakeholder professional agencies to have sufficient resources to achieve a pan European radiation protection training network which is sustainable and accredited across multiple national domains.

How to improve access to medical imaging in low- and middle-income countries ?

Imaging has become key in the care pathway of communicable and non-communicable diseases. Yet, there are major shortages of imaging equipment and workforce in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The International Society of Radiology outlines a plan to upscale the role of imaging in the global health agenda and proposes a holistic approach for LMICs. A generic model for organising imaging services in LMICs via regional Centres of Reference is presented. The need to better exploit IT and the potential of artificial intelligence for imaging, also in the LMIC setting, is highlighted. To implement the proposed plan, involvement of professional and international organisations is considered crucial. The establishment of an International Commission on Medical Imaging under the umbrella of international organisations is suggested and collaboration with other diagnostic disciplines is encouraged to raise awareness of the importance to upscale diagnostics at large and to foster its integration into the care pathway globally.

Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

The diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer requires access to imaging to ensure accurate management decisions and optimal outcomes. Our global assessment of imaging and nuclear medicine resources identified substantial shortages in equipment and workforce, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). A microsimulation model of 11 cancers showed that the scale-up of imaging would avert 3·2% (2·46 million) of all 76·0 million deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide between 2020 and 2030, saving 54·92 million life-years. A comprehensive scale-up of imaging, treatment, and care quality would avert 9·55 million (12·5%) of all cancer deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide, saving 232·30 million life-years. Scale-up of imaging would cost US$6·84 billion in 2020-30 but yield lifetime productivity gains of $1·23 trillion worldwide, a net return of $179·19 per $1 invested. Combining the scale-up of imaging, treatment, and quality of care would provide a net benefit of $2·66 trillion and a net return of $12·43 per $1 invested. With the use of a conservative approach regarding human capital, the scale-up of imaging alone would provide a net benefit of $209·46 billion and net return of $31·61 per $1 invested. With comprehensive scale-up, the worldwide net benefit using the human capital approach is $340·42 billion and the return per dollar invested is $2·46. These improved health and economic outcomes hold true across all geographical regions. We propose actions and investments that would enhance access to imaging equipment, workforce capacity, digital technology, radiopharmaceuticals, and research and training programmes in LMICs, to produce massive health and economic benefits and reduce the burden of cancer globally.

Imaging referral guidelines in Europe: now and in the future-EC Referral Guidelines Workshop Proceedings.

UNLABELLED: As an integral part of the European Commission (EC) Imaging Referral Guidelines Project a 1.5-day workshop was held in Vienna on 20-21 September, 2012. At this workshop, models and good practices regarding the appropriateness and use of imaging referral guidelines (Guidelines) in Europe and worldwide were presented, together with the results of a survey of Guidelines in Europe. The latter included ideas, innovations and wishes for future Community action. MAIN MESSAGES: Recommendations for future Community action: Stronger measures should be taken by the EC and the European competent authorities for making Guidelines available and used in all EU member states. Evidence-based Guidelines with separate guidance for children should be issued or endorsed by a trusted European organisation. Educational initiatives and electronic requesting in connection with clinical decision support (CDS) systems should be used to improve the implementation of Guidelines. Monitoring of Guidelines implementation and use should be by clinical audit, particularly external audit, but also by local/internal audit.

European survey on imaging referral guidelines.

UNLABELLED: The objective of this study was to devise and implement a Europe-wide study on referral guidelines for radiological imaging in the EU Member States in order to identify potential major issues, important differences between Member States and good practices. A web-based survey was used to assess the availability of imaging referral guidelines, development methodology and preferences for future initiatives for European community action to facilitate justification and appropriate use of radiological diagnostic procedures. A questionnaire was distributed to representatives of national radiological and nuclear medicine societies as well as to competent authorities for radiation protection in 30 European countries, including all 28 EU Member States. Responses were collated and analysed to produce a series of conclusions and recommendations. MAIN MESSAGES: • Survey respondents in 21/30 countries were aware of legal requirements for Guidelines • Survey respondents in 18/30 countries were aware of the availability of Guidelines in their country. • The majority of responders support the development of European Guidelines. These may either be from a combination of multiple national Guidelines with consensus or Pan-European Guidelines developed centrally. • Guidelines developed in two countries included all of the following important features: radiation dose information; specific advice for imaging children; specific advice for the pregnant woman/unborn child; an evidence-based process; a formal consensus for recommendations. • Suggestions for additional measures needed to reinforce the use of Guidelines include: educational initiatives; integrating Guidelines into clinical decision support systems; clinical audit for monitoring of the availability, use and implementation of Guidelines.