The Federal Government’s Oversight of CT Safety: Regulatory Possibilities
2012; Radiological Society of North America; Volume: 262; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1148/radiol.11111032
ISSN1527-1315
AutoresH. Benjamin Harvey, Pari V. Pandharipande,
Tópico(s)Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
ResumoHomeRadiologyVol. 262, No. 2 PreviousNext Reviews and CommentaryOpinionThe Federal Government’s Oversight of CT Safety: Regulatory PossibilitiesH. Benjamin Harvey, Pari V. Pandharipande H. Benjamin Harvey, Pari V. Pandharipande Author AffiliationsFrom the Department of Radiology, Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, 101 Merrimac St, 10th Floor, Boston, MA 02114.Address correspondence to P.V.P. (e-mail: [email protected]).H. Benjamin HarveyPari V. Pandharipande Published Online:Feb 1 2012https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11111032MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookXLinked In AbstractWe have provided a framework for understanding the federal government’s regulatory authority and capabilities in the context of CT safety.References1 Mettler FA, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K, et al.. Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources—1950-2007. Radiology 2009;253(2):520–531. Link, Google Scholar2 Smith-Bindman R. Is computed tomography safe? N Engl J Med 2010;363(1):1–4. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3 Brenner DJ, Hricak H. Radiation exposure from medical imaging: time to regulate? JAMA 2010;304(2):208–209. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Bogdanich W. After stroke scans, patients face serious health risks. New York Times Web site. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/health/01radiation.html. Published July 30, 2010. Accessed August 13, 2011. Google Scholar5 Safety Investigation of CT Brain Perfusion Scans. Food and Drug Administration Web site. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm185898.htm. Published November 2010. Updated November 9, 2010. Accessed May 15, 2011. Google Scholar6 Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, et al.. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(22):2071–2077. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7 Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al.. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(22):2078–2086. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8 White Paper: Initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging. Food and Drug Administration Web site. www.fda.gov/downloads/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/UCM200087.pdf. Published November 2010. Accessed May 15, 2011. Google Scholar9 Radiation Control/State Licensure Offices. American Society of Radiologic Technologists Web site. https://www.asrt.org/content/GovernmentRelations/LegislativeGuidebook/StateRadControlAndLicensureOffices.aspx. Accessed August 13, 2011. Google Scholar10 New York Code of Rules and Regulations, Title 10, Chapter I, Part 16. Ionizing Radiation. Google Scholar11 Texas Administrative Code, Title 25, Part 1, Chapter 289, Subchapter E, Rule §289.227, CT X-ray Systems. Google Scholar12 Alabama Administrative Code, Chapter 420-3-26, Radiation Control. Google Scholar13 ASRT Tally of State Licensure, Certification or Recognition Standards by Discipline. American Society of Radiologic Technologists Web site. https://www.asrt.org/Content/GovernmentRelations/TallyofStateLicensure.aspx. Accessed August 13, 2011. Google Scholar14 Medical Radiation: An Overview of the Issues. United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democrats. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=hearing/medical-radiation-an-overview-of-the-issues. Published February 2010. Accessed May 15, 2011. Google Scholar15 Public Meeting: Device Improvements to Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging. Food and Drug Administration Web site. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm201448.htm. Published March 2010. Accessed November 9, 2010. Google Scholar16 Gostin LO. Public health law in a new century: part II: public health powers and limits. JAMA 2000;283(22):2979–2984. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar17 Gostin LO. Medical marijuana, American federalism, and the Supreme Court. JAMA 2005;294(7):842–844. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar18 Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). Google Scholar19 Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). Google Scholar20 Mammography Quality Standards Act. 42 U.S.C. § 263b (2006). Google Scholar21 Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. 42 U.S.C. § 263a (2006). Google Scholar22 The Long-Term Budget Outlook. Congressional Budget Office Web site. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11579. Published June 2010. Accessed May 15, 2011. Google Scholar23 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (2006). Google Scholar24 Mammography. 21 C.F.R. § 900.12 (2000). Google Scholar25 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1320d (2006). Google Scholar26 Part B—Supplementary Medical Insurance Benefits for Aged and Disabled. 42 U.S.C. §1395m (2006). Google Scholar27 Imaging Accreditation. 42 C.F.R. § 414.68 (2009). Google Scholar28 Laboratory Requirements. 42 C.F.R. § 493 (1998). Google Scholar29 H.R. 3652, Consistency, Accuracy, Responsibility, and Excellence in Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy. Govtrack.us Web site. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3652. Accessed May 15, 2011. Google Scholar30 Hadley JL, Agola J, Wong P. Potential impact of the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria on CT for trauma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186(4):937–942. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar31 Lehnert BE, Bree RL. Analysis of appropriateness of outpatient CT and MRI referred from primary care clinics at an academic medical center: how critical is the need for improved decision support? J Am Coll Radiol 2010;7(3):192–197. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar32 Sistrom CL, Dang PA, Weilburg JB, Dreyer KJ, Rosenthal DI, Thrall JH. Effect of computerized order entry with integrated decision support on the growth of outpatient procedure volumes: seven-year time series analysis. Radiology 2009;251(1):147–155. Link, Google Scholar33 Herman S. Radiology decisions lead to cost savings. Point-of-order clinical decision-support solutions assure that medically appropriate procedures are given the highest priority. Health Manag Technol 2010;31(5):26–28. Medline, Google Scholar34 Medicare Demonstrations: Details for Medicare Imaging Demonstration. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Web site. http://www.cms.gov/demoprojectsevalrpts/md/itemdetail.asp?itemid=cms1222075. Published February 2011. Accessed May 15, 2011. Google Scholar35 Medicare: Referrals to Physician-Owned Imaging Facilities Warrant HCFA’s Scrutiny, GAO/HEHS-95-2. U.S. General Accounting Office Web site. http://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-95-2. Published October 1994. Accessed May 15, 2011. Google Scholar36 Hillman BJ, Joseph CA, Mabry MR, Sunshine JH, Kennedy SD, Noether M. Frequency and costs of diagnostic imaging in office practice—a comparison of self-referring and radiologist-referring physicians. N Engl J Med 1990;323(23):1604–1608. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar37 Gazelle GS, Halpern EF, Ryan HS, Tramontano AC. Utilization of diagnostic medical imaging: comparison of radiologist referral versus same-specialty referral. Radiology 2007;245(2):517–522. Link, Google Scholar38 Mitchell JM. Utilization trends for advanced imaging procedures: evidence from individuals with private insurance coverage in California. Med Care 2008;46(5):460–466. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar39 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3590, 111th Cong. (2nd Sess. 2009). Google Scholar40 Limitation on certain physician referrals. 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn (2006). Google Scholar41 Congressional Budget Office, letter to the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch regarding effects of proposals to limit costs related to medical malpractice. Congressional Budget Office Web site. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf. Published October 9, 2009. Accessed August 13, 2011. Google Scholar42 Studdert DM, Mello MM, Sage WM, et al.. Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA 2005;293(21):2609–2617. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar43 Investigation of Defensive Medicine in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Medical Society Web site. http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Research_Reports_and_Studies2&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=27797. Published November 2008. Accessed August 13, 2011. Google Scholar44 Baicker K, Fisher ES, Chandra A. Malpractice liability costs and the practice of medicine in the Medicare program. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26(3):841–852. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar45 Sloan FA, Shadle JH. Is there empirical evidence for “Defensive Medicine”? A reassessment. J Health Econ 2009;28(2):481–491. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar46 Nationwide Evaluation of X-Ray Trends (NEXT), Tabulation and Graphical Summary of 2000 Survey of Computed Tomography. Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. and Food and Drug Administration. http://www.crcpd.org/Pubs/NEXT_docs/NEXT2000-CT.pdf. Published August 2007. Accessed August 13, 2011. Google Scholar47 ACR Practice Guideline for Diagnostic Reference Levels in Medical X-ray Imaging. American College of Radiology Web site. http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/RadSafety/RadiationSafety/guideline-diagnostic-reference.aspx. Published 2008. Accessed May 15, 2011. Google Scholar48 Gray JE, Archer BR, Butler PF, et al.. Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact. Radiology 2005;235(2):354–358. Link, Google Scholar49 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative. Overview. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Web site. https://www.cms.gov/PQRS/. Accessed May 15, 2011. Google Scholar50 CA Senate Bill 1237. 2009-2010 Regular Session. Google Scholar51 Dose Index Registry. American College of Radiology Web site. https://nrdr.acr.org/Portal/DIR/Main/page.aspx. Accessed September 5, 2011. Google Scholar52 Destouet JM, Bassett LW, Yaffe MJ, Butler PF, Wilcox PA. The ACR’s Mammography Accreditation Program: ten years of experience since MQSA. J Am Coll Radiol 2005;2(7):585–594. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar53 Mammography services. Impact of federal legislation on quality, access, and health outcomes. United States General Accounting Office Web site. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/Reports/ucm124388.pdf. Published October 1997. Accessed May 15, 2011. Google Scholar54 Pisano ED, Schell M, Rollins J, et al.. Has the mammography quality standards act affected the mammography quality in North Carolina? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174(4):1089–1091. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarArticle HistoryReceived May 18, 2011; revision requested July 11; revision received September 19; final version accepted September 26.Published online: Feb 2012Published in print: Feb 2012 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByTrends in Inpatient Utilization of Head Computerized Tomography Scans in the United States: A Brief Cross-Sectional StudyAliSeifi, SeyedmohammadJafari, SeyyedmohammadsadeqMirmoeeni, AmirhosseinAzari Jafari, NiyoushaNaderi, ArminSafdarpour, SepehrSeifi2022Jun16 | Cureus, Vol. 22X-ray cabinet to deliver highly characterized low-dose soft x-ray radiation to biological samplesBishwambharSengupta, DonaldMedlin, MichaelSprunk, JustinNapolitano, JaclynD’Avanzo, XiaoRan Zheng, DelphineDean, EndreTakacs13 March 2020 | Review of Scientific Instruments, Vol. 91, No. 3Automatic Mapping of CT Scan Locations on Computational Human Phantoms for Organ Dose EstimationChoonsikLee, Gleb A.Kuzmin, JinyongBae, JianhuaYao, ElizabethMosher, Les R.Folio5 September 2018 | Journal of Digital Imaging, Vol. 32, No. 1Medical imaging dose optimisation from ground up: expert opinion of an international summitEhsanSamei, HannuJärvinen, MikaKortesniemi, GeorgeSimantirakis, CharlesGoh, AnthonyWallace, EliseoVano, AdrianBejan, MadanRehani, JeniaVassileva12 June 2018 | Journal of Radiological Protection, Vol. 38, No. 3Automatic Medicine? Technology and the Future of Primary Health CareDanielSkinner, BerkeleyFranz19 September 2017Impact of California Computed Tomography Dose Legislation: Survey of RadiologistsEvan J.Zucker, Richard A.Barth2017Jun1 | Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Vol. 48, No. 2Use of an Online Education Platform to Enhance Patients’ Knowledge About Radiation in Diagnostic ImagingJoseph R.Steele, A. KyleJones, Ryan K.Clarke, Sue J.Shiao, WeiWei, StoweShoemaker, SimritParmar2017Mar1 | Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 14, No. 3Meeting the Needs for Radiation ProtectionDonald P.Frush2017Feb1 | Health Physics, Vol. 112, No. 2Radiologist Compliance With California CT Dose Reporting Requirements: A Single-Center Review of Pediatric Chest CTEvan J.Zucker, David B.Larson, BeverleyNewman, Richard A.Barth2015Apr1 | American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 204, No. 4Initial Outcomes From Federally Mandated Accreditation Site Surveys of Advanced Diagnostic Imaging Facilities Performed by the ACRH. BenjaminHarvey, DavidChow, MarionBoston, JingZhao, LeonardLucey, Debra L.Monticciolo2014Jul1 | Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 11, No. 7Exploratory Analysis of High CT Scan Utilization in Claims DataJames W.Begun, William J.Riley, James S.Hodges2014Jan1 | Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 11, No. 1Recommended Articles CT Radiation Dose Management: A Comprehensive Optimization Process for Improving Patient SafetyRadiology2016Volume: 280Issue: 3pp. 663-673An Image Quality–informed Framework for CT CharacterizationRadiology2021Volume: 302Issue: 2pp. 380-389Developing, Purchasing, Implementing and Monitoring AI Tools in Radiology: Practical Considerations. A Multi-Society Statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR and RSNARadiology: Artificial Intelligence2024Volume: 6Issue: 1U.S. Diagnostic Reference Levels and Achievable Doses for 10 Adult CT ExaminationsRadiology2017Volume: 284Issue: 1pp. 120-133Essential Role of a Medical Physicist in the Radiology DepartmentRadioGraphics2018Volume: 38Issue: 6pp. 1665-1671See More RSNA Education Exhibits Green is the New Pink- Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Breast Imaging PracticesDigital Posters2022Radiofrequency Safety in MR Imaging: What Are the Concerns?Digital Posters2022Demystifying the CT Dose Sheet and Image HeadersDigital Posters2020 RSNA Case Collection Spinal Epidermoid CystRSNA Case Collection2021Neurofibromatosis Type 1RSNA Case Collection2021 Dystrophic CalcificationsRSNA Case Collection2022 Vol. 262, No. 2 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download
Referência(s)