B. Hansson, Matea Simic, J. Olsrud, K. Markenroth Bloch, T. Owman, P. Sundgren, I. Björkman-Burtscher
{"title":"MR- safety: Evaluation of compliance with screening routines using a structured screening interview","authors":"B. Hansson, Matea Simic, J. Olsrud, K. Markenroth Bloch, T. Owman, P. Sundgren, I. Björkman-Burtscher","doi":"10.1177/25160435221077493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Magnetic resonance (MR) safety procedures are designed to allow patients, research subjects and personnel to enter the MR-scanner room under controlled conditions and without the risk to be harmed during the examination. Ferromagnetic objects in the MR-environment or inside the human body represent the main safety risks potentially leading to human injuries. Screening for MR-safety risks with dedicated procedures is therefore mandatory. As human errors during the screening procedure might align and lead to an incident compliance is essential. Purpose To evaluate compliance with a documented structured MR-safety screening process. Method Written and signed MR-safety screening documentation collected at a national 7T MR facility during a four-year period was evaluated for compliance of trained personnel with multi-step MR-safety routines. We analysed whether examinations were performed or why they were not performed. Data analysis further included descriptive statistics of the study population (age, gender and patient or healthy volunteer status), identification of missing documents and omitted or incorrect answers, and whether these compliance shortcomings concerned predominantly administrative or MR-safety related issues. Results Documentation of the screening process in 1819 subjects was incomplete in 19% of subjects. The most common documentation shortcoming was omitted fields. Out of 478 omitted answer-fields in 307 subjects, 36% were of administrative nature and 64% related directly to MR-safety issues. Conclusion Compliance with MR-safety screening procedures cannot be taken for granted and deficiencies to comply with screening routines were revealed. Documentation shortcomings concerned both administrative and MR-safety related issues.","PeriodicalId":73888,"journal":{"name":"Journal of patient safety and risk management","volume":"11 1 1","pages":"76 - 82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of patient safety and risk management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25160435221077493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background Magnetic resonance (MR) safety procedures are designed to allow patients, research subjects and personnel to enter the MR-scanner room under controlled conditions and without the risk to be harmed during the examination. Ferromagnetic objects in the MR-environment or inside the human body represent the main safety risks potentially leading to human injuries. Screening for MR-safety risks with dedicated procedures is therefore mandatory. As human errors during the screening procedure might align and lead to an incident compliance is essential. Purpose To evaluate compliance with a documented structured MR-safety screening process. Method Written and signed MR-safety screening documentation collected at a national 7T MR facility during a four-year period was evaluated for compliance of trained personnel with multi-step MR-safety routines. We analysed whether examinations were performed or why they were not performed. Data analysis further included descriptive statistics of the study population (age, gender and patient or healthy volunteer status), identification of missing documents and omitted or incorrect answers, and whether these compliance shortcomings concerned predominantly administrative or MR-safety related issues. Results Documentation of the screening process in 1819 subjects was incomplete in 19% of subjects. The most common documentation shortcoming was omitted fields. Out of 478 omitted answer-fields in 307 subjects, 36% were of administrative nature and 64% related directly to MR-safety issues. Conclusion Compliance with MR-safety screening procedures cannot be taken for granted and deficiencies to comply with screening routines were revealed. Documentation shortcomings concerned both administrative and MR-safety related issues.