Catherine Beckers1, Roland Hustinx. 1. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Oncological Imaging, Department of Medical Physics, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Introducing a hybrid imaging method such as single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT greatly alters the routine in the nuclear medicine department. It requires designing new workflow processes and the revision of original scheduling process and imaging protocols. In addition, the imaging protocol should be adapted for each individual patient, so that performing CT is fully justified and the CT procedure is fully tailored to address the clinical issue. Such refinements often occur before the procedure is started but may be required at some intermediate stage of the procedure. Furthermore, SPECT/CT leads in many instances to a new partnership with the radiology department. This article presents practical advice and highlights the key clinical elements which need to be considered to help understand the workflow process of SPECT/CT and optimise imaging protocols. METHODS: The workflow process using SPECT/CT is complex in particular because of its bimodal character, the large spectrum of stakeholders, the multiplicity of their activities at various time points and the need for real-time decision-making. RESULTS: With help from analytical tools developed for quality assessment, the workflow process using SPECT/CT may be separated into related, but independent steps, each with its specific human and material resources to use as inputs or outputs. This helps identify factors that could contribute to failure in routine clinical practice. At each step of the process, practical aspects to optimise imaging procedure and protocols are developed. A decision-making algorithm for justifying each CT indication as well as the appropriateness of each CT protocol is the cornerstone of routine clinical practice using SPECT/CT. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, implementing hybrid SPECT/CT imaging requires new ways of working. It is highly rewarding from a clinical perspective, but it also proves to be a daily challenge in terms of management.
PURPOSE: Introducing a hybrid imaging method such as single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT greatly alters the routine in the nuclear medicine department. It requires designing new workflow processes and the revision of original scheduling process and imaging protocols. In addition, the imaging protocol should be adapted for each individual patient, so that performing CT is fully justified and the CT procedure is fully tailored to address the clinical issue. Such refinements often occur before the procedure is started but may be required at some intermediate stage of the procedure. Furthermore, SPECT/CT leads in many instances to a new partnership with the radiology department. This article presents practical advice and highlights the key clinical elements which need to be considered to help understand the workflow process of SPECT/CT and optimise imaging protocols. METHODS: The workflow process using SPECT/CT is complex in particular because of its bimodal character, the large spectrum of stakeholders, the multiplicity of their activities at various time points and the need for real-time decision-making. RESULTS: With help from analytical tools developed for quality assessment, the workflow process using SPECT/CT may be separated into related, but independent steps, each with its specific human and material resources to use as inputs or outputs. This helps identify factors that could contribute to failure in routine clinical practice. At each step of the process, practical aspects to optimise imaging procedure and protocols are developed. A decision-making algorithm for justifying each CT indication as well as the appropriateness of each CT protocol is the cornerstone of routine clinical practice using SPECT/CT. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, implementing hybrid SPECT/CT imaging requires new ways of working. It is highly rewarding from a clinical perspective, but it also proves to be a daily challenge in terms of management.
Authors: Eric P Tamm; Janio Szklaruk; Leejo Puthooran; Danna Stone; Brian L Stevens; Cathy Modaro Journal: Radiographics Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Andreas K Buck; Stephan Nekolla; Sibylle Ziegler; Ambros Beer; Bernd J Krause; Ken Herrmann; Klemens Scheidhauer; Hans-Juergen Wester; Ernst J Rummeny; Markus Schwaiger; Alexander Drzezga Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-07-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Debdut Biswas; Jesse E Bible; Michael Bohan; Andrew K Simpson; Peter G Whang; Jonathan N Grauer Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: William C Lavely; Sibyll Goetze; Kent P Friedman; Jeffrey P Leal; Zhe Zhang; Elizabeth Garret-Mayer; Alan P Dackiw; Ralph P Tufano; Martha A Zeiger; Harvey A Ziessman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: H Palmedo; C Marx; A Ebert; B Kreft; Y Ko; A Türler; R Vorreuther; U Göhring; H H Schild; T Gerhardt; U Pöge; S Ezziddin; H-J Biersack; H Ahmadzadehfar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-08-24 Impact factor: 9.236