Monday, August 19, 2013

Free CEU Review



Just a quick post to let everyone know about the ASRT's promotion going on until National Radiologic Technology Week.  If you are creating a CEU course up to 2 hours in length and are presenting it during tech week (November 2-10, 2013), you can get ASRT approval for FREE.  You can submit more than one activity, but all submissions must be in before November 4, 2013.

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Iowa allows Fluoroscopic Supervision by Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners



In October, 2011, the Iowa District Court for Polk County ruled that supervision of fluoroscopic procedures by Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners (ARNP) is indeed beyond  their scope of practice.  This was primarily due to lack of sufficient training in school, and failure of the nursing board to establish a training curriculum which specifies minimum standards of safety.  Prescribing fluoroscopy falls under the same umbrella as practicing medicine, which is clearly out of their scope of practice... until now.

On May 31, 2013, the Supreme Court of Iowa reversed this decision.  ARNP's are now legally allowed to supervise fluoroscopic procedures, as long as they have received "special training" to do so.  While Nursing Associations around the country hail the Court for its overturning of this verdict, the question comes to mind, "Do they understand the implications?"  This overturning has publicly lacked the support of the ACR, the Iowa Radiological Society, The Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ASRT.

There are still a few states in the U.S. that do not require a license/registration for individuals to perform static radiographic examinations.  Even in states that do require this for plain film production, they have been practicing fluoroscopic procedures without a "supervisor" of fluoroscopy for a long time... "for over 20 years" in the Iowa Court discussion.  As the country moves to improve the education and accreditation of technologists performing imaging exams using radiation, this is a step in the wrong direction.  Let the legal loopholes begin.

I have to wonder why the original verdict reached by Polk County was overturned since nearly the entire medical community was not in support of allowing nurses to supervise fluoro procedures.  It is substantially clear that individuals involved in reversing this decision have some kind of profit to make (or to avoid losing).  Why hire a trained professional (a new added expense) when the old way of doing things would only cost the nurses (not the hospitals) a little bit of money for a class on radiation safety?

It's only fair that I address the one and only problem this would require the hospitals to face if the decision was not overturned... in a time when health insurance coverage is taking its toll on the financial health of hospital organizations, this would require an increased cost to hospitals to find qualified personnel, especially in rural areas where there may be a shortage of these people to perform the job.  Hospitals would encounter the issue of attracting qualified professionals to fill these needs in their areas.  Even given this credit, what I'm left asking is should the difficulty of this task compromise patient safety?  In my humble opinion, no.

In my professional experience working in three different states as a radiologic technologist, I have seen very strict radiation protection guidelines and very loose ones.  I can't fathom the reasoning behind sacrificing a standard of safety so that (with all due respect to their traditional scope of practice) a nurse can take a short course and supervise a radiologic technologist to perform a fluoroscopic procedure.  The argument, "we've been doing it for over 20 years" no longer suffices.  Radiologic Technologists have at least two years of background education, and I don't believe we are even qualified to supervise a fluoroscopic procedure.  I'm uncomfortable with the idea that prescribing a radiation dose for any patient is being allowed despite the opinion of both national and state-level authorities on imaging and radiation protection.

I would love to learn about the training regimen that will be introduced for ARNP's that will be proposed that will be deemed sufficient for the State of Iowa.  At this time, I could not find any references.  But unless this decision goes to the national Supreme Court, the citizens of Iowa will be subject to its legal system and its band-aid solution.

What's your take on this situation?  Do you think the Iowa Supreme Court made a good decision to allow ARNP's to supervise fluoroscopic procedures?

Resources:

American Society of Anesthesiologists 

Iowa Society of Anesthesiologists

Iowa Medical Society

ASAQH

Official Iowa Supreme Court Decision (33 pages)



Wednesday, June 5, 2013

How to Create a Radiographic Technique Chart


Having an accurate technique chart is key for maintaining image quality while using the lowest dose possible in any radiology department.  Sure, you may already know what kind of technical factors to apply on that portable chest x-ray in the emergency room, but what about people who aren’t as familiar with your equipment as you are like students, registry/float techs, or new employees?  Though some of these people I mentioned may already have an x-ray license, it can still be challenging for any of these people to catch up to the learning curve at your facility. 

Not only are these individuals learning their way around, but they also need to adapt to new software, physician preferences, and unfamiliar imaging protocols.  Why not make it easier for them to help you?  Chances are, they want to do a good job to continue to be able to work there, but they might just need a little assistance getting their bearings.  One of these people might say “help me help you.”  Yes, I just quoted Jerry Maguire.

Creating a technique chart is not a difficult task, but it can be time consuming depending on the resources you have at hand.  If you wait until a chart is needed, it's probably too late.  I’ve always thought it was a great student task, but anyone can do it.  I have made technique charts for many facilities I've worked for, and although there are quite a few methods for deriving one, I’m going to discuss the best methods that have worked for me. 

Here’s a list of things you might need around during the creation of a chart for your facility:

  • calipers
  • calculator
  • technique chart template
  • list of available grid ratios in your site
  • x-ray phantom
  • acceptable exposure indicator ranges from your CR/DR equipment vendor

Steps for creating a technique chart:

Produce radiographs with technical factors above and below average level:

The hardest part of creating a technique chart for a lot of people is knowing where to start.  I like to pick  one specific body part that is medium in size.  For instance, I usually start with a knee.  It’s a common body part to x-ray, and it’s a part that you can sometimes perform table-top or with a grid.  If you have a phantom, try taking a series of AP knees at different kVp ranges (60, 65, and 70 for example).  For non-grid techniques, use 60 kVp first.  Keep repeating the exposures until you have an image with an appropriate exposure indicator value.   Then create some images at 65 kVp and 70 kVp that all produce exposure indicators within acceptable range.  Note the thickness of the phantom with calipers.  It is important to measure exactly through the central ray (I’ll discuss what to do with this later).

If you do not have a phantom, you may decide to record several AP knee views on patients, possibly even using AEC.  I don’t recommend performing test exposures on actual patients, but pick a few exams that come out within acceptable exposure indicator ranges, and note their measurements with calipers.  Remember to try different kVp ranges, and consider using AEC.  Simply record the mAs value that AEC provides and measure the patient thickness if the exposure indicator is within diagnostic range.

Note:  If you do not have calipers, simply note "small", "medium", or "large" for patient size reference.  While this method is less accurate, having this information will be far more useful than no information at all to the newcomer to your facility.

Supervisors or Radiologists discard unacceptable images and select preferred images:

If you do not have a group of quality control personnel in your facility, consider showing your collection of images to a chief radiologist.  Only select the exposures with acceptable exposure indicator ranges to present.  You don’t need to let the doctor know all the technical details… simply ask them which ones they like best.  A radiation-conscious doctor may inquire about dose between the images, and you can inform them when prompted about which images have more or less exposure to the patient.  If you keep your original kVp ranges adequate to part thickness within reason, you should not have a lot of variation.  Select the technical factors that the radiologist, or group of quality control personnel deem most acceptable to move onto the next step with.  For an example, I’ll use the technical factors 65 kVp and 4 mAs for a table-top knee measuring 9 cm with the calipers.

Prepare the chart for preliminary trials:

Starting your technique chart with a knee allows you to have a wide range of body parts with similar composition to derive techniques for.  As a table-top technique, the baseline of 60 kVp can be used from the knee all the way down to the toes.  Here’s where all those lessons in school will come in handy… estimate some techniques using the 4cm rule.  Remember, every 4cm of tissue thickness requires a double in mAs value to maintain density.  If we are going to work from the knee down, we need to remember that if we decrease 4cm in tissue thickness, we need to ½ the mAs to maintain density. 

An example would be an AP ankle.  If we have an ankle measuring 5cm, we can compare the knee technique and reduce the mAs by ½ because it is 4cm less than the knee.  Being similar tissue composition (muscle, bone, tendon, ligaments, etc.), 65 kVp at 2.0 mAs should provide an ideal exposure indicator.  For a foot, consider lowering the kVp due to the dramatic decrease in part thickness compared to the knee.  Keep your mAs at 2.0, but try 60 kVp if it measures 2 cm.

This, of course, can all be derived on paper before it is applied to a phantom or patients.  Once you get to larger knees above 10cm, or the femur, you can start adding additional details like what grid ratios you are using.  We shouldn’t use less than 70 kVp with a grid.  Let’s think about how we would image a 13cm knee:
Our original technique was 65 kVp at 4 mAs.  There are a couple of steps to consider here.  First, we know that we need to double the exposure to maintain density with a 4cm increase in technique.  Since I know that I’ll need to increase kVp to account for grid usage, I’m going to increase kVp 15% (about 75 kVp) for this step.  This serves to double exposure to the image receptor as well as provide the adequate kVp I need for grid usage.  Next, I have to account for the grid conversion.  If I’m using an 8:1 grid, my conversion factor is 4.  I need to multiply my mAs by 4 to maintain density to account for the grid.  My new technique for a 13cm knee is 75 kVp at 16 mAs with the 8:1 grid.  If I’m going to move to the table bucky, that’s a conversion factor of 5 (most buckies are a 12:1 ratio), so I would use 75 kVp at 20 mAs. 

These techniques seem a little high for the site I’m currently working, but remember, they’re just an example based off an original technique that worked.  Once you have a beginning technique with grids, you can continue to compensate for body thickness as you go proximally up the leg.  You’ll find that shoulders and knees are similar in thickness, as well as ankles and elbows, feet and wrists, etc.  For pediatric work, a 2 year-old abdomen is about the thickness of an adult knee.  The key is to find a starting point so you can make a calculated guess on the next projection you will need to make.

Test the new chart on phantoms of different sizes:

Once you have some good calculated technical factors, it’s time to test on phantoms.  If you don’t have phantoms, I would suggest performing these on patients.  Start performing them on parts closer to the ones you started with so you can eliminate as many variables as possible like body habitus, pathology, presence/absence of air, etc. 

Useful information to have on your technique charts include mA, time, kVp, SID, grid vs. no grid, focal spot size, exposure indicator values, body part thickness/habitus, or any other factors that you may change between exams.  I recommend keeping a digital copy in excel, or any other software you feel comfortable with that is easily edited.  A technique chart is never really "finished" as equipment is constantly replaced, wear and tear on equipment affects performance, and as calibration occurs over the years.  Remember to update your chart with any changes.  You can view and/or download a Sample Technique Chart Here.

Creating a technique chart from scratch can be quite tedious, but it is a skill that should be developed for all technologists.  Knowing manual techniques will improve your portable and OR imaging skills, and it can provide early indicators for quality control or equipment repair concerns.  There are many circumstances where AEC can produce inadequate images such as improper bucky selection, prosthetics over the ion chamber, or general operator error.  Manual techniques are great to know and provide the technologist with a lot of versatility.  

Saturday, May 11, 2013

CR Quality Control Summary


A consistent quality control program goes a long way toward maintaining a high standard of image quality within your radiology department.  The tests posted within this series are not all-inclusive for every CR system, but may provide as a good start for the beginning stages of any QC program.  Variations may occur if your department utilizes a hard-copy laser printer and/or measurement tools at the QC station (or to include the radiologists' work station).

As a general rule of thumb, most CR vendors recommend designating one person as the quality control technologist.  Other technologists may be trained in the event of an absence, but testing should be performed as consistently as possible to reduce variables.

Any QC test that does not meet specifications should first be repeated.  After a repeat test fails, a qualified service professional should be contacted to troubleshoot the problem.  Additionally, after any equipment repairs or replacement of parts, a new baseline should be established.

There may be additional troubleshooting to consider with equipment that might affect the QC testing results as well.  If you know of any aspect of the x-ray machine used to perform QC testing that is inconsistent, such as line voltage, mA station linearity problems, or timer malfunctions, these can also be researched prior to contacting the CR reader's service professional.  Ideally, the tests would be set up in the beginning to be performed on the most consistent equipment available.  Imaging departments may also consider annual contracts with service professionals if consistency may be an issue.

Your quality control manual should be kept in a safe place, but accessible in the event of a state or JCAHO inspection.  All results (even failing results) should be documented and maintained within the manual.  You may also consider keeping records of service calls and documents related to equipment repair on hand for future analysis.  Always watch for trends in test failures and use these trends to determine what service contracts and/or equipment repairs and replacement may best suit the needs of your department.

I hope you've found this series useful.  Here is a summary of all of the tests covered:


CR Quality Control #1 - Screen Cleaning
CR Quality Control #2 - Creating a Baseline Phantom Image
CR Quality Control #3 - Exposure Indicator Calibration
CR Quality Control #4 - Contrast Evaluation 
CR Quality Control #5 - Sharpness
CR Quality Control #6 - Shading Correction
CR Quality Control #7 - Laser Jitter
CR Quality Control #8 - Image Artifacts and Noise
CR Quality Control #9 - Exposure Linearity
CR Quality Control #10 - Residual Image Testing

Thursday, May 9, 2013

CR Quality Control #10 – Residual Image Testing



This test evaluates the CR reader’s erasure function and should be performed semi-annually.  Each exposed image plate should be adequately erased during the processing cycle to prevent a residual image on the next image.

Procedure:
  1. Erase your dedicated test IP
  2. Place a lead apron on the floor of your x-ray room (use same room that baseline image was performed in)
  3. Place test IP on lead apron
  4. Place phantom on cassette (same orientation as baseline image)
  5. Raise the x-ray tube to maximum height, center, and open collimation about 1" past edges of test IP
  6. Expose the phantom at using twice the mAs value of the baseline image and process the image (or perform immediately following the system linearity test after the cassette has been erased on the exposure that was made at double the baseline).
  7. Turn the phantom 180 degrees and place a radiopaque object in the center of the phantom
  8. Expose at the normal baseline technique
  9. Process the IP under “Contrast” menu selection
Results:

The processed image should appear normal compared to the baseline image, except that the phantom will be displayed upside down with the radiopaque object.  There should be no evidence of an additional phantom pattern.  If a residual image is present, re-test and call a service professional if the re-test does not eliminate the residual image.

Other posts in this series:


CR Quality Control #1 - Screen Cleaning
CR Quality Control #2 - Creating a Baseline Phantom Image
CR Quality Control #3 - Exposure Indicator Calibration
CR Quality Control #4 - Contrast Evaluation 
CR Quality Control #5 - Sharpness
CR Quality Control #6 - Shading Correction
CR Quality Control #7 - Laser Jitter
CR Quality Control #8 - Image Artifacts and Noise
CR Quality Control #9 - Exposure Linearity

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Shape Distortion

One of the most fun courses I have taken and taught is exposure principles.  This course typically introduces students to different types of distortion that can occur on the radiograph.  Size distortion, otherwise known as simple distortion or magnification, occurs when OID is increased.  The other type of distortion, shape distortion, can be broken down into two main categories; foreshortening and elongation.

Foreshortening is when the radiographic image measures shorter in one dimension than the actual object being radiographed.  The only way this can happen is if the central ray and image receptor are perpendicular, and the object being radiographed is angled.  This is demonstrated in the image below (courtesy of students in the Radiography Program at OCTS/KCTCS) by comparing the top left, undistorted image, to the middle two which were placed on 45 degree-angled sponges.  This may also result in unequal magnification, where one side of the object may appear larger than the other due to differences in OID from one end of the angled part to the other.

Elongation is when the radiographic image appears longer than the object being radiographed.  There are several situations where this can happen.  If the central ray is perpendicular to the part, but the IR is angled, there will be more elongation with a greater increase in IR angle.  If the part is parallel to the IR, but the x-ray tube is angled, elongation can occur as in the bottom left image below (45 degree tube angle to the part).  Elongation can also occur when the x-ray tube is off-center to the part, even though the part may be parallel to the IR.  This is caused by the divergence of the beam, and is demonstrated by the two images on the right below.

*note - there would be no difference between an off-centered x-ray tube with collimation opened to the part compared to a tube angle from the same starting point (as long as the tube does not move).  Check this post out for more on that.


The image below is a similar experiment performed in one of my exposure principals labs.  We observe the following using a quarter, a 2" sponge, and a 45 degree angled sponge:

  1. Perpendicular CR to the coin (parallel to the IR) with a 2" OID 
  2. Coin parallel to IR on 2" sponge, but 45 degree tube angle
  3. Tube returned to perpendicular to IR, but quarter is angled 45 degrees
  4. CR angled 45 degrees (perpendicular to angled quarter)
  5. CR angled half the part angle (demonstrating an isometric principle)


You'll notice very slight elongation in image 2 compared to the first.  Image 3 is quite foreshortened, and image 4 has the most elongation.  Image 5 is very useful for trauma views, and is illustrated with exams like the axial calcaneous and AP sacrum/coccyx.  The tube is angled half of the part's angle to the IR.  This reduces the effects of elongation as much as possible, so our exposure 5 measures the same as exposure 1.

Monday, May 6, 2013

CR Quality Control #9 - Exposure Linearity


This test should be done semi-annually and tests for the CR system's ability to properly rescale images that are over or under exposed.  It also measures accuracy of the exposure indicator and its ability to increase/decrease in relationship to the exposure value.

Procedure:
  1. Erase your dedicated test IP
  2. Place a lead apron on the floor of your x-ray room (use same room that baseline image was performed in)
  3. Place test IP on lead apron
  4. Place phantom on cassette (same orientation as baseline image)
  5. Raise the x-ray tube to maximum height, center, and open collimation about 1" past edges of test IP
  6. For all following exposures, annotate the technical factors used, exposure indicator, date, and which reader the image was processed on.
Exposure 1 - should be set with the same kVp as the baseline technique, but half the mAs.  .

Exposure 2 - should be the same technical factors as the baseline exposure.

Exposure 3 - should be performed with the same kVp as the baseline technique, but double the mAs value.

Results:

The brightness of each of the three images should be the same.  If there is variation, you may have a problem with the automatic rescaling function (click here to read more about automatic rescaling).

Exposure 1 should display a change in baseline exposure indicator to represent 1/2 the exposure +/- 20% (S# = baseline x 2, EI = baseline - 300, LgM = baseline - 0.3).  Exposure 2 should be within +/- 20% of the baseline reading.  Exposure 3 should display a change in baseline exposure indicator to represent a double in exposure value +/- 20% (S# = baseline x 0.5, EI = baseline + 300, LgM = baseline + 0.3).

Use the following formula to calculate percentage of change (click here for detailed instructions how to calculate percentage of increase or decrease):

new exposure indicator - baseline exposure indicator  x 100
                  baseline exposure indicator 

If variance is outside the +/- 20%, service personnel should be contacted.


Other posts in this series:

Here's a Quick Way to Speed Up Your Xray Exams

Beginning your clinical rotation in x-ray school can be overwhelming.  Not only are you plunged into a new environment, you are expected ...