Standards of practice
Quality Improvement Guidelines for Recording Patient Radiation Dose in the Medical Record for Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2011.09.004Get rights and content

Section snippets

Preamble

The membership of the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) Standards of Practice Committee represents experts in a broad spectrum of interventional procedures from both the private and academic sectors of medicine. Generally Standards of Practice Committee members dedicate the vast majority of their professional time to performing interventional procedures; as such, they represent a valid broad expert constituency of the subject matter under consideration for standards production.

Technical

Methodology

SIR produces its Standards of Practice documents using the following process. Standards documents of relevance and timeliness are conceptualized by the Standards of Practice Committee members. A recognized expert is identified to serve as the principal author for the standard. Additional authors may be assigned depending upon the magnitude of the project.

An in-depth literature search is performed using electronic medical literature databases. Then, a critical review of peer-reviewed articles is

Patient Radiation Dose Recording

As of 2011, there are no federal regulatory requirements in the United States concerning recording or reporting of radiation dose data for interventional procedures. There are recommendations on this topic from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD), and national and international advisory bodies (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Regulations or guidance at the state level are not uniform (11). Only a small number of states have

Absorbed dose

The energy imparted to matter by ionizing radiation per unit mass of irradiated material at the point of interest. The SI unit is J kg–1 with the special name gray (Gy).

Air kerma

The energy released per unit mass of a small volume of air when it is irradiated by an x-ray beam. For diagnostic x-rays, air kerma is the same as the absorbed dose delivered to the volume of air in the absence of scatter. Air kerma is measured in Gy.

Biologic variation

With respect to radiation, the differences among individuals in the threshold

Dose Estimation

Radiation-induced effects are divided conventionally into deterministic and stochastic effects (16, 31). The likelihood of these effects in any individual patient cannot be predicted unless that patient's radiation history is known. This is the principal reason for recording patient radiation dose. Monitoring and recording patient dose data can also be valuable for both quality-assurance purposes and for improving patient safety (9, 32). Feedback to the operator may help to optimize radiation

Data Recording

Ideally, all available patient radiation dose data should be recorded (13). In the future, this may become an automatic process, as the FDA has expressed an intention to establish requirements for CT and fluoroscopic devices to provide radiation dose information for use in patient medical records or a radiation dose registry (72). For the present, and for the purpose of this guideline, adequate recording of dose metrics is defined as documentation in the patient record of at least one of the

Acknowledgments

Donald L. Miller, MD, authored the first draft of this revised document and served as topic leader during the subsequent revisions of the draft. Robert G. Dixon, MD, is chair of the Safety and Health Committee. Boris Nikolic, MD, MBA, is chair of the SIR Revisions Committee. John F. Cardella, MD, served as SIR Standards Division Councilor during the development of this document and contributed to its content. All other authors are listed alphabetically. Other members of the Safety and Health

References (72)

  • D.L. Miller et al.

    Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study part IOverall measures of dose

    J Vasc Interv Radiol

    (2003)
  • M.S. Stecker et al.

    Guidelines for patient radiation dose management

    J Vasc Interv Radiol

    (2009)
  • A. Fink et al.

    Consensus methods: Characteristics and guidelines for use

    Am J Public Health

    (1984)
  • L.L. Leape et al.

    The appropriateness of use of coronary artery bypass graft surgery in New York State

    JAMA

    (1993)
  • Public Health Advisory: avoidance of serious x-ray-induced skin injuries to patients during fluoroscopically-guided procedures

    (1994)
  • Recording information in the patient's medical record that identifies the potential for serious x-ray-induced skin injuries

    (1995)
  • T.B. Shope et al.

    Regulations and recommendations relevant to interventional radiology

  • Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures

    Ann ICRP

    (2000)
  • Radiation dose management for fluoroscopically guided interventional medical procedures

    (2011)
  • Technical White Paper: Monitoring and tracking of fluoroscopic dose

    (2010)
  • Radiation protection in medicine

    Ann ICRP

    (2007)
  • ACR–SIR Practice Guideline for the Reporting and Archiving of Interventional Radiology Procedures

    (2009)
  • International basic safety standards for protection against ionizing radiation and the safety of radiation sources

    (1996)
  • T.R. Koenig et al.

    Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures: part 2, review of 73 cases and recommendations for minimizing dose delivered to the patient

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (2001)
  • S. Balter et al.

    Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients' skin and hair

    Radiology

    (2010)
  • W. Huda et al.

    Radiation-induced temporary epilation after a neuroradiologically guided embolization procedure

    Radiology

    (1994)
  • D.A. Lichtenstein et al.

    Chronic radiodermatitis following cardiac catheterization

    Arch Dermatol

    (1996)
  • T.B. Shope

    Radiation-induced skin injuries from fluoroscopy

    Radiographics

    (1996)
  • T. Vehmas

    Hawthorne effect: shortening of fluoroscopy times during radiation measurement studies

    Br J Radiol

    (1997)
  • R. Padovani et al.

    Retrospective evaluation of occurrence of skin injuries in interventional cardiac procedures

    Radiat Prot Dosimetry

    (2005)
  • S. Suzuki et al.

    Patients' skin dose during percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion

    Cathet Cardiovasc Interv

    (2008)
  • S. Balter et al.

    Patient radiation dose audits for fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures

    Med Phys

    (2011)
  • N.T. Stevens et al.

    Monitoring radiation use in cardiac fluoroscopy imaging procedures

    Med Phys

    (2011)
  • The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection

    Ann ICRP

    (2007)
  • M. Mahesh

    Fluoroscopy: patient radiation exposure issues

    Radiographics

    (2001)
  • Report 60601 medical electrical equipment–part 2-43: particular requirements for the safety of x-ray equipment for interventional procedures

    (2000)
  • Cited by (92)

    • A critical appraisal of the quality of guidelines for radiation protection in interventional radiology using the AGREE II tool: A EuroAIM initiative

      2021, European Journal of Radiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Our systematic search resulted in 106 citations, while 3 further articles were retrieved from website and index searches. After the first study selection, based on abstract or article type, 56 articles and related documents underwent full-text screening, 11 of them – published between 2009 and 2018 – ultimately meeting inclusion criteria [20–30]. Fig. 1 depicts the flowchart of the guideline selection process.

    • Patient dosimetry in neurointerventional procedures

      2020, Radiation Physics and Chemistry
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    R.G.D. is an educational consultant for Bard (Covington, Georgia). None of the other authors have identified a conflict of interest.

    The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the United States Government.

    The initial version of this article first appeared in J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004; 15:423–429.

    View full text