Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

MR-safety in clinical practice at 7T : Evaluation of a multistep screening process in 1819 subjects

Hansson, B. LU ; Simic, M. ; Olsrud, J. LU ; Markenroth Bloch, K. LU orcid ; Owman, T. LU ; Sundgren, P. C. LU orcid and Björkman-Burtscher, I. M. LU (2022) In Radiography 28(2). p.454-459
Abstract

Introduction: MR facilities must implement and maintain adequate screening and safety procedures to ensure safety during MR examinations. The aim of this study was to evaluate a multi-step MR safety screening process used at a 7T facility regarding incidence of different types of safety risks detected during the safety procedure. Methods: Subjects scheduled for an MR examination and having entered the 7T facility during 2016–2019 underwent a pre-defined multi-step MR safety screening process. Screening documentation of 1819 included subjects was reviewed, and risks identified during the different screening steps were compiled. These data were also related to documented decisions made by a 7T MR safety committee and reported MR safety... (More)

Introduction: MR facilities must implement and maintain adequate screening and safety procedures to ensure safety during MR examinations. The aim of this study was to evaluate a multi-step MR safety screening process used at a 7T facility regarding incidence of different types of safety risks detected during the safety procedure. Methods: Subjects scheduled for an MR examination and having entered the 7T facility during 2016–2019 underwent a pre-defined multi-step MR safety screening process. Screening documentation of 1819 included subjects was reviewed, and risks identified during the different screening steps were compiled. These data were also related to documented decisions made by a 7T MR safety committee and reported MR safety incidents. Results: Passive or active implants (n = 315) were identified in a screening form and/or an additional documented interview in 305 subjects. Additional information not previously self-reported by the subject, regarding implants necessitating safety decisions performed by the staff was revealed in the documented interview in 102 subjects (106 items). In total, the 7T MR safety committee documented a decision in 36 (2%) of the included subjects. All of these subjects were finally cleared for scanning. Conclusion: A multi-step screening process allows a thorough MR screening of subjects, avoiding safety incidents. Different steps in the process allow awareness to rise and items to be detected that were missed in earlier steps. Implications for practice: Safety questions posed at a single timepoint during an MR screening process might not reveal all safety risks. Repetition and rephrasing of screening questions leads to increased detection of safety risks. This could be effectively mitigated by a multi-step screening process. A multi-disciplinary safety committee is efficient at short notice responding to unexpected safety issues.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Documentation, Health care, Implants, Magnetic resonance imaging, Patient safety, Safety management
in
Radiography
volume
28
issue
2
pages
454 - 459
publisher
W.B. Saunders
external identifiers
  • scopus:85122124548
  • pmid:34973869
ISSN
1078-8174
DOI
10.1016/j.radi.2021.12.007
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
0e69a825-01b8-4201-80d1-a523306b6f13
date added to LUP
2022-03-23 11:39:13
date last changed
2024-06-08 21:06:30
@article{0e69a825-01b8-4201-80d1-a523306b6f13,
  abstract     = {{<p>Introduction: MR facilities must implement and maintain adequate screening and safety procedures to ensure safety during MR examinations. The aim of this study was to evaluate a multi-step MR safety screening process used at a 7T facility regarding incidence of different types of safety risks detected during the safety procedure. Methods: Subjects scheduled for an MR examination and having entered the 7T facility during 2016–2019 underwent a pre-defined multi-step MR safety screening process. Screening documentation of 1819 included subjects was reviewed, and risks identified during the different screening steps were compiled. These data were also related to documented decisions made by a 7T MR safety committee and reported MR safety incidents. Results: Passive or active implants (n = 315) were identified in a screening form and/or an additional documented interview in 305 subjects. Additional information not previously self-reported by the subject, regarding implants necessitating safety decisions performed by the staff was revealed in the documented interview in 102 subjects (106 items). In total, the 7T MR safety committee documented a decision in 36 (2%) of the included subjects. All of these subjects were finally cleared for scanning. Conclusion: A multi-step screening process allows a thorough MR screening of subjects, avoiding safety incidents. Different steps in the process allow awareness to rise and items to be detected that were missed in earlier steps. Implications for practice: Safety questions posed at a single timepoint during an MR screening process might not reveal all safety risks. Repetition and rephrasing of screening questions leads to increased detection of safety risks. This could be effectively mitigated by a multi-step screening process. A multi-disciplinary safety committee is efficient at short notice responding to unexpected safety issues.</p>}},
  author       = {{Hansson, B. and Simic, M. and Olsrud, J. and Markenroth Bloch, K. and Owman, T. and Sundgren, P. C. and Björkman-Burtscher, I. M.}},
  issn         = {{1078-8174}},
  keywords     = {{Documentation; Health care; Implants; Magnetic resonance imaging; Patient safety; Safety management}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{2}},
  pages        = {{454--459}},
  publisher    = {{W.B. Saunders}},
  series       = {{Radiography}},
  title        = {{MR-safety in clinical practice at 7T : Evaluation of a multistep screening process in 1819 subjects}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2021.12.007}},
  doi          = {{10.1016/j.radi.2021.12.007}},
  volume       = {{28}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}