There are many factors that should be weighed into purchasing decisions for new medical imaging equipment, first and foremost the needs of the patient.
However, these important decisions might be made on an ad hoc basis without accounting for certain key quality requirements. In purchasing a fleet of mobile radiography units, a new approach akin to the “Consumer Report” format which engages not only clinical and purchasing staff but physicists and technologists is getting good reviews at Duke where it has been demonstrated.
“Often, physicists perform testing once machines have been purchased and thus are an untapped resource of knowledge and expertise in making data-driven purchase decisions,” says Ehsan Samei, chief imaging physicist at Duke University. Four vendors were first asked to demonstrate their units. A survey was then administered listing features most affecting technologists ability to acquire a quality image in practice. Technologists were asked to rate the overall performance of the unit with regard to each of these features on a scale of 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent). This was followed by a blind study of radiologists’ perception of image quality on 60 randomly selected clinical bedside chest images. Each image was rated in terms of overall quality, mediastinum noise, rib contrast, lung density, and lung detail.
Using a “Consumer Report” format, these results were combined to provide a comprehensive assessment of equipment options including data gathered from technologists on desirable features, radiologists on image quality, vendor specifications made into uniform comparisons, and physicists’ measurements. The outcome was a report that helped the clinical leadership to make an informed decision. “This type of coordinated, comprehensive approach engages physicists in the evaluation process and results in evidence-based decisions regarding equipment purchase that will help us deliver the best and most effective patient care with confidence and accountability,” says Samei.
Radiation therapy is often a key part of treatment for many childhood cancers. Expecting children to remain still during the therapy, however, can be a challenge.
The role of medical physicists and their value to Radiology Departments can be under-appreciated because often their work products are filled with numbers, calculations, tables, and plots that can easily be dismissed by simply looking for a “pass” or “fail” result.
One might think of medical physics as a field of calculations and measurements and machines, but for one medical physicist, he sees his work making a real difference in the lives of patients.
In an age of increasingly complex equipment and sophisticated quality assurance programs, it’s imperative that clinical physicists never lose sight of patients’ wishes.
Today, cancer patients all too often undergo cancer treatment with only a radiation oncologist, and perhaps a nurse, directly responsible for their care.
Uniformity tests are among the most important quality assurance evaluations for nuclear medicine gamma cameras, so they are performed daily—prior to patient imaging—to ensure that systems are functioning properly.
Epilepsy is typically managed via medication, but many patients also receive implanted nerve stimulators to help control their symptoms.
There are many factors that should be weighed into purchasing decisions for new medical imaging equipment, first and foremost the needs of the patient.
Clinical medical physicists are responsible for determining whether or not imaging systems are operating properly, and the method they use to do this is transitioning from Medical Physics 1.0, which provide “siloed” glimpses of system performance, to a more comprehensive version known as Medical Physics 3.0.
Proper medical imaging requires a careful balance between the quality and the safety of the exam. A poor quality exam is a disservice to the care of the patient while an exam with more radiation dose than necessary can undermine its safety.