ABSTRACTS PRESENTADOS AL 11th INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM "RADIONUCLIDES IN NEPHRO-UROLOGY", REALIZADO EN MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA, 13-17 MAYO 2001.
21. THE UK NUCLEAR MEDICINE SOFTWARE AUDIT PROGRAMME, AND ITS RELEVANCE TO IMPROVING STANDARDS IN NEPHRO-UROLOGY.
P.S.
Cosgriff, J. Fleming, A. Houston, J. Skrypniuk, D. Whalley, D. Bailey.
Software Audit Group, UK Institue of Physics and Engineering in Medicine.
Guideline
production must be supported by a rigorous audit process if standards
are to be improved in nuclear medicine (1). Data processing
software forms and important part of most nuclear medicine procedures
and national audit schemes have been set up to establish baselines
and monitor progress.
Since 1997 four such audits have been completed in the UK, and two
of them (static DMSA imaging and basic renography) relate to renal
nuclear medicine. A fifth audit, on GFR measurement using serial blood
samples, will commence in January 2001.
The
process involves the distribution of about 10 selected clinical data
sets to participating centres, who process the data using their usual
method and send results back for collation and analysis. The data
conversion/distribution involved considerable help from the various
manufactures that proved to be essential.
Inter-comparison naturally focused on the quantitative measurements
made from such studies (e.g. relative renal function, transit time,
etc). Results were fed back to participating centres in histogram
fashion, so they could identify their position in the overall distribution.
Support and advice was offered to 'outliers'.
Results
showed generally good consistency in the measurement of relative renal
function (from either DMSA imaging or renography), but confirmed much
poorer results for some other renographic parameters. The main conclusions
from both audits will be discussed, as well as the initial results
from the GFR audit.
As we move closer to formal department accreditation, participation in such external audit schemes is set to become increasingly important as a means of demonstrating to quality improvement.
1. Cosgriff PS. Quality assurance in renography: A review.
Nucl Med Commun 1998:19:711-716
|
|
 |
