title: Compliance with AAPM Practice Guideline 1.a: CT Protocol Management and Review - from the perspective of a university hospital.
abstract: The purpose of this paper is to describe our experience with the AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 1.a: "CT Protocol Management and Review Practice Guideline". Specifically, we will share how our institution's quality management system addresses the suggestions within the AAPM practice report. We feel this paper is needed as it was beyond the scope of the AAPM practice guideline to provide specific details on fulfilling individual guidelines. Our hope is that other institutions will be able to emulate some of our practices and that this article would encourage other types of centers (e.g., community hospitals) to share their methodology for approaching CT protocol optimization and quality control. Our institution had a functioning CT protocol optimization process, albeit informal, since we began using CT. Recently, we made our protocol development and validation process compliant with a number of the ISO 9001:2008 clauses and this required us to formalize the roles of the members of our CT protocol optimization team. We rely heavily on PACS-based IT solutions for acquiring radiologist feedback on the performance of our CT protocols and the performance of our CT scanners in terms of dose (scanner output) and the function of the automatic tube current modulation. Specific details on our quality management system covering both quality control and ongoing optimization have been provided. The roles of each CT protocol team member have been defined, and the critical role that IT solutions provides for the management of files and the monitoring of CT protocols has been reviewed. In addition, the invaluable role management provides by being a champion for the project has been explained; lack of a project champion will mitigate the efforts of a CT protocol optimization team. Meeting the guidelines set forth in the AAPM practice guideline was not inherently difficult, but did, in our case, require the cooperation of radiologists, technologists, physicists, IT, administrative staff, and hospital management. Some of the IT solutions presented in this paper are novel and currently unique to our institution.
authors.affiliation: University of Wisconsin Madison. szczykutowic@wisc.edu.
authors.forename: Timothy P
authors.initials: TP
authors.lastname: Szczykutowicz
authors.forename: Robert K
authors.initials: RK
authors.lastname: Bour
authors.forename: Myron
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Pozniak
authors.forename: Frank N
authors.initials: FN
authors.lastname: Ranallo
mesh_terms: D004282:Documentation / Q000592:standards; D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000592:standards*; D006283:Health Physics / Q000592:standards; D006785:Hospitals, University; D006801:Humans; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D018787:Radiation Oncology / Q000592:standards; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000592:standards*