Rebecca Smith-Bindman1,2,3,4, Philip Chu1, Yifei Wang1, Robert Chung5, Naomi Lopez-Solano1, Andrew J Einstein6,7,8, Leif Solberg9, Luisa F Cervantes10, Thomas Yellen-Nelson11, William Boswell12, Bradley N Delman13, Phuong-Anh Duong14, Allen R Goode15, Nima Kasraie16, Ryan K Lee17, Rebecca Neill14, Anokh Pahwa18, Pavlina Pike19, Jodi Roehm20, Sebastian Schindera21, Jay Starkey22, Saravanabavaan Suntharalingam23, Cécile R L P N Jeukens24, Diana L Miglioretti25,26. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco. 2. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco. 4. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco. 5. Department of Demography, University of California, Berkeley. 6. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York. 7. Department of Radiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York. 8. New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 9. HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 10. Nicklaus Children's Hospital, Miami, Florida. 11. Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego. 12. Department of Radiology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California. 13. Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 14. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 15. Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Virginia. 16. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 17. Department of Radiology, Einstein Healthcare Network, New York, New York. 18. Department of Radiology Sciences, Olive View UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 19. Huntsville Hospital System, Huntsville, Alabama. 20. Center for Diagnostic Imaging, St Louis Park, Minnesota. 21. Department of Radiology, Cantonal Hospital, Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland. 22. St Luke's International Hospital, Chuo, Tokyo, Japan. 23. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital, Essen, Germany. 24. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 25. Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis. 26. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle.
Abstract
Importance: Computed tomography (CT) radiation doses vary across institutions and are often higher than needed. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of 2 interventions to reduce radiation doses in patients undergoing CT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 864 080 adults older than 18 years who underwent CT of the abdomen, chest, combined abdomen and chest, or head at 100 facilities in 6 countries from November 1, 2015, to September 21, 2017. Data analysis was performed from October 4, 2017, to December 14, 2018. Interventions: Imaging facilities received audit feedback alone comparing radiation-dose metrics with those of other facilities followed by the multicomponent intervention, including audit feedback with targeted suggestions, a 7-week quality improvement collaborative, and best-practice sharing. Facilities were randomly allocated to the time crossing from usual care to the intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the proportion of high-dose CT scans and mean effective dose at the facility level. Secondary outcomes were organ doses. Outcomes after interventions were compared with those before interventions using hierarchical generalized linear models adjusting for temporal trends and patient characteristics. Results:Across 100 facilities, 864 080 adults underwent 1 156 657 CT scans. The multicomponent intervention significantly reduced proportions of high-dose CT scans, measured using effective dose. Absolute changes in proportions of high-dose scans were 1.1% to 7.9%, with percentage reductions in the proportion of high-dose scans of 4% to 30% (abdomen: odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88; P < .001; chest: OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P = .03; combined abdomen and chest: OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.41-0.59; P < .001; and head: OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66-0.76; P < .001). Reductions in the proportions of high-dose scans were greater when measured using organ doses. The absolute reduction in the proportion of high-dose scans was 6.0% to 17.2%, reflecting 23% to 58% reductions in the proportions of high-dose scans across anatomical areas. Mean effective doses were significantly reduced after multicomponent intervention for abdomen (6% reduction, P < .001), chest (4%, P < .001), and chest and abdomen (14%, P < .001) CT scans. Larger reductions in mean organ doses were 8% to 43% across anatomical areas. Audit feedback alone reduced the proportions of high-dose scans and mean dose, but reductions in observed dose were smaller. Radiologist's satisfaction with CT image quality was unchanged and high during all periods. Conclusions and Relevance: For imaging facilities, detailed feedback on CT radiation dose combined with actionable suggestions and quality improvement education significantly reduced doses, particularly organ doses. Effects of audit feedback alone were modest. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03000751.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Computed tomography (CT) radiation doses vary across institutions and are often higher than needed. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of 2 interventions to reduce radiation doses in patients undergoing CT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 864 080 adults older than 18 years who underwent CT of the abdomen, chest, combined abdomen and chest, or head at 100 facilities in 6 countries from November 1, 2015, to September 21, 2017. Data analysis was performed from October 4, 2017, to December 14, 2018. Interventions: Imaging facilities received audit feedback alone comparing radiation-dose metrics with those of other facilities followed by the multicomponent intervention, including audit feedback with targeted suggestions, a 7-week quality improvement collaborative, and best-practice sharing. Facilities were randomly allocated to the time crossing from usual care to the intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the proportion of high-dose CT scans and mean effective dose at the facility level. Secondary outcomes were organ doses. Outcomes after interventions were compared with those before interventions using hierarchical generalized linear models adjusting for temporal trends and patient characteristics. Results: Across 100 facilities, 864 080 adults underwent 1 156 657 CT scans. The multicomponent intervention significantly reduced proportions of high-dose CT scans, measured using effective dose. Absolute changes in proportions of high-dose scans were 1.1% to 7.9%, with percentage reductions in the proportion of high-dose scans of 4% to 30% (abdomen: odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88; P < .001; chest: OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P = .03; combined abdomen and chest: OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.41-0.59; P < .001; and head: OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66-0.76; P < .001). Reductions in the proportions of high-dose scans were greater when measured using organ doses. The absolute reduction in the proportion of high-dose scans was 6.0% to 17.2%, reflecting 23% to 58% reductions in the proportions of high-dose scans across anatomical areas. Mean effective doses were significantly reduced after multicomponent intervention for abdomen (6% reduction, P < .001), chest (4%, P < .001), and chest and abdomen (14%, P < .001) CT scans. Larger reductions in mean organ doses were 8% to 43% across anatomical areas. Audit feedback alone reduced the proportions of high-dose scans and mean dose, but reductions in observed dose were smaller. Radiologist's satisfaction with CT image quality was unchanged and high during all periods. Conclusions and Relevance: For imaging facilities, detailed feedback on CT radiation dose combined with actionable suggestions and quality improvement education significantly reduced doses, particularly organ doses. Effects of audit feedback alone were modest. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03000751.
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Sophronia Yu; Yifei Wang; Marc D Kohli; Philip Chu; Robert Chung; Jason Luong; Denise Bos; Carly Stewart; Biraj Bista; Alejandro Alejandrez Cisneros; Bradley Delman; Andrew J Einstein; Michael Flynn; Patrick Romano; J Anthony Seibert; Antonio C Westphalen; Andrew Bindman Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Cécile R L P N Jeukens; Hub Boere; Bart A J M Wagemans; Patty J Nelemans; Estelle C Nijssen; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Joachim E Wildberger; Anna M Sailer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-01-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Philip W Chu; Sophronia Yu; Yifei Wang; J Anthony Seibert; Luisa F Cervantes; Nima Kasraie; Cameron A Chu; Rebecca Smith-Bindman Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2021-12-06