1 Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic and Interventional X-ray Procedures: Requirements, Rationale, Recommendations, and Rollout Sam Keith, Chair ISCORS Medical Workgroup (CDC/NCEH/ATSDR) Donald L. Miller, MD, FACR (FDA/CDRH/OCER) Joint AAPM/COMP Annual Meeting Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada August 4, 2011 Requirements (Mandates) 1959 – FRC to advise President on radiation health matters 1959 – DHEW (DHHS) to intensify its radiological health efforts Collection, analysis, and interpretation of data Areas include environmental radiation levels such as natural background, radiography, medical and industrial use of isotopes and x-rays, and fallout Secretary can advise the President and the general public. ↑FDA + PHS budgets from $1.0M to $3.2M 1970 – EPA to ―advise the President with respect to radiation matters, directly or indirectly affecting health, including guidance for all Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and in the establishment and execution of programs of cooperation with States.‖ 2010 – FDA to strengthen oversight of CT 1976 FGR9 (Rationale) X-rays contributed 90% of manmade radiation (11% of total) Increased use (faster than population from 1964–1970) Potential for dose reduction: protecting patient greatest control of population exposure Bottom line: Following guidance would save dose and money 1976 Recommendations Introduced into Federal guidance the concepts of : Diagnostic information Reduce screening Protecting fetus Credentialing Exposure criteria AND NOW?????
8
Embed
Radiation Protection Guidance for Requirements (Mandates)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Radiation Protection Guidance for
Diagnostic and Interventional X-ray Procedures:
Requirements, Rationale, Recommendations, and Rollout
Sam Keith, Chair ISCORS Medical Workgroup (CDC/NCEH/ATSDR)
Donald L. Miller, MD, FACR (FDA/CDRH/OCER)
Joint AAPM/COMP Annual Meeting
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
August 4, 2011
Requirements (Mandates) 1959 – FRC to advise President on radiation health matters
1959 – DHEW (DHHS) to intensify its radiological health efforts
Collection, analysis, and interpretation of data
Areas include environmental radiation levels such as natural
background, radiography, medical and industrial use of isotopes and
x-rays, and fallout
Secretary can advise the President and the general public.
↑FDA + PHS budgets from $1.0M to $3.2M
1970 – EPA to ―advise the President with respect to radiation
matters, directly or indirectly affecting health, including guidance
for all Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards
and in the establishment and execution of programs of cooperation
with States.‖
2010 – FDA to strengthen oversight of CT
1976 FGR9 (Rationale)
X-rays contributed 90% of manmade radiation (11% of total)
Increased use (faster than population from 1964–1970)
Potential for dose reduction: protecting patient greatest control of population
exposure
Bottom line: Following guidance would save dose and money
1976 Recommendations
Introduced into Federal guidance the concepts
of :
Diagnostic information
Reduce screening
Protecting fetus
Credentialing
Exposure criteria
AND NOW?????
2
Rationale for Update:
FGR No. 9 Outdated Shift from film screen to digital imaging
Additional modalities and newer technologies
Newer radiation protection concepts, methods
Negative events
Definitions
Justification—A medical exposure to ionizing radiation should do more good than harm to the patient.
Optimization—Imaging should be performed with the least amount of radiation needed to provide adequate images
Reference levels—values used as quality assurance and quality improvement tools, intended to provide guidance on what is achievable with current good practice
6
Rationale: Patient Doses Increasing Rationale: Overexposure PotentialAppropriate exposure Over exposure
Challenges in Medicine
3
Rationale: Protect Children
Image Gently Alliance:
Keep it simple
Invite all stakeholders
Listen and learn
Collaborate
Writing FGR 14
Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS)
Medical Work Group
Federal Guidance Subcommittee
Expert consensus
Authors
Federal agencies (Army, Navy, Air Force, EPA, CDC/ATSDR, FDA, DVA, OSHA)
Outside consultants
Physicians (radiology, pediatric radiology, cardiology, internal medicine), dentists, veterinarians, medical physicists, health physicists, radiologic technologists
11
Basic Message
The fundamental objective in performing an
x-ray examination is to obtain the required
diagnostic information with only as much
radiation dose as is required to achieve
adequate image quality.
4
Guidance
The appropriate examination is performed
Appropriate equipment and technique factors are used
Equipment is functioning properly and calibrated
Equipment is operated only by competent personnel
The patient is prepared appropriately
What is Included
Recommendations (“should”)
Medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine
Imaging using X-rays: Radiography, CT,
fluoroscopy, bone densitometry
Special populations: pediatric patients,
pregnant patients, patients in research
studies
Occupational radiation protection
What is Not Included
Requirements/mandates (“shall”, “must”)
Radiation oncology
Nuclear medicine
Ultrasound
MRI
Contents
Radiation safety concepts and standards
Requesting and performing studies involving x-rays
Technical quality assurance
Specific guidance by modality
Medical imaging informatics
Summary and recommendations
Recommendations for agency actions
5
Recommended Agency Actions
Facilities/agencies should use methods for estimating individual occupational doses based on the goal of assigning accurate doses rather than overly conservative estimates of doses. NCRP Report No. 122 provides recommended methods for determining effective dose (E) and effective dose equivalent. The various Federal regulatory agencies should establish consistent methods and procedures for this purpose.
Recommended Agency Actions
Patient safety requires that infrastructure exists for collecting, storing, and analyzing patient dosimetry data. Federal facilities should plan for longitudinal tracking of patient radiation doses. This planning should address the data acquisition, networking, storage, analysis, and security requirements of existing and planned future diagnostic devices.
18
Recommended Agency Actions
All uses of radiation in diagnostic medical imaging should be justified and optimized.This is the responsibility of all involved providers and technologists. Dose management begins when a patient is considered for a procedure involving ionizing radiation, involves equipment setup before the exam begins, and ends when any necessary radiation-related follow-up is completed.
Recommended Agency Actions
It is strongly recommended that the justification of medical exposure for an individual patient be carried out by the Referring Medical Practitioner, in consultation with the Radiological Medical Practitioner when appropriate. Each health care facility should establish a formal mechanism whereby Referring Medical Practitioners have sources of information available at the time of ordering regarding appropriate diagnostic imaging methods to answer the clinical question and to optimize ionizing radiation dose to the patient.
20
6
Recommended Agency Actions
For each type of examination there exists, within available technology, an optimal combination of imaging equipment and technique factors to produce adequate images at doses below the reference level. Federal facilities should evaluate each imaging system’s performance to optimize dose, and maintain this by establishing appropriate procedures and conducting periodic monitoring.
Recommended Agency Actions
Each institution or individual practitioner should use reference levels as a quality improvement tool by collecting and assessing radiation dose data. Each institution should also submit its radiation dose data to a national registry when available.
22
Recommended Agency Actions
Screening programs should be subjected to
rigorous scientific evaluation, as has been done
for mammography, to ensure that the risk
posed to the population screened does not
outweigh the benefits in detection of disease.
23
Rollout: Status and Outreach
Federal review (DoD, DOL, EPA, HHS, VA, PA)
6/2011 EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator briefed
7/2011 briefings by ATSDR+FDA, meetings of DHHS+EPA