临床磁共振安全中的危害控制层次:美国放射学会磁共振安全手册分析。

Ives R Levesque, Véronique Fortier, Jorge Campos Pazmiño, Zaki Ahmed, Evan McNabb
{"title":"临床磁共振安全中的危害控制层次:美国放射学会磁共振安全手册分析。","authors":"Ives R Levesque, Véronique Fortier, Jorge Campos Pazmiño, Zaki Ahmed, Evan McNabb","doi":"10.1067/j.cpradiol.2025.06.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this work was to critically assess safety guidance and practices in clinical magnetic resonance (MR) using the hierarchy of hazard controls (HHC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Publicly available, widely used guidance documents for MR safety practice were gathered. The most recent guidance, the American College of Radiology (ACR) MR Safety Manual (2024) was selected for detailed analysis. A 5-point scale was assigned to the various levels in the hierarchy of hazard controls, from Elimination (score=5, most effective) to Personal Protective Equipment (score=1, least effective). MR safety practices recommended in the ACR MR Safety Manual were surveyed and scored using the 5-point scale. The safety practices were grouped by category of hazard addressed (e.g. main field, radio-frequency field, gradient field).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, Administrative Controls were the most common controls, followed by Engineering Controls. Controls within each hazard category featured a range of HHC scores, and all categories were predominantly served by Administrative Controls.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The analysis presented in this work could serve as a tool to analyze choices made in the deployment of safety measures, to motivate decision- or policy-making, as a tool for assessment of MR safety programs, or as an approach to motivate future work in the design of hazard controls for MR.</p>","PeriodicalId":93969,"journal":{"name":"Current problems in diagnostic radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The hierarchy of hazard controls in clinical magnetic resonance safety: an analysis of the American College of Radiology Manual on MR Safety.\",\"authors\":\"Ives R Levesque, Véronique Fortier, Jorge Campos Pazmiño, Zaki Ahmed, Evan McNabb\",\"doi\":\"10.1067/j.cpradiol.2025.06.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this work was to critically assess safety guidance and practices in clinical magnetic resonance (MR) using the hierarchy of hazard controls (HHC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Publicly available, widely used guidance documents for MR safety practice were gathered. The most recent guidance, the American College of Radiology (ACR) MR Safety Manual (2024) was selected for detailed analysis. A 5-point scale was assigned to the various levels in the hierarchy of hazard controls, from Elimination (score=5, most effective) to Personal Protective Equipment (score=1, least effective). MR safety practices recommended in the ACR MR Safety Manual were surveyed and scored using the 5-point scale. The safety practices were grouped by category of hazard addressed (e.g. main field, radio-frequency field, gradient field).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, Administrative Controls were the most common controls, followed by Engineering Controls. Controls within each hazard category featured a range of HHC scores, and all categories were predominantly served by Administrative Controls.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The analysis presented in this work could serve as a tool to analyze choices made in the deployment of safety measures, to motivate decision- or policy-making, as a tool for assessment of MR safety programs, or as an approach to motivate future work in the design of hazard controls for MR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current problems in diagnostic radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current problems in diagnostic radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2025.06.007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current problems in diagnostic radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2025.06.007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是使用危险控制等级(HHC)对临床磁共振(MR)的安全指导和实践进行批判性评估。方法:收集公开的、广泛使用的磁共振安全实践指导文件。最新的指南,美国放射学会(ACR)磁共振安全手册(2024)被选中进行详细分析。从消除(得分=5,最有效)到个人防护装备(得分=1,最无效),对危害控制等级中的各个级别分配了5分制。对ACR核磁共振安全手册中推荐的核磁共振安全措施进行了调查,并使用5分制进行了评分。安全措施按处理的危害类别分组(如主场、射频场、梯度场)。结果:总体而言,行政控制是最常见的控制,其次是工程控制。每个危害类别中的控制具有一系列HHC评分,所有类别主要由行政控制服务。结论:本工作中提出的分析可以作为分析安全措施部署选择的工具,激励决策或政策制定,作为评估MR安全计划的工具,或作为激励MR危害控制设计的未来工作的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The hierarchy of hazard controls in clinical magnetic resonance safety: an analysis of the American College of Radiology Manual on MR Safety.

Objective: The purpose of this work was to critically assess safety guidance and practices in clinical magnetic resonance (MR) using the hierarchy of hazard controls (HHC).

Methods: Publicly available, widely used guidance documents for MR safety practice were gathered. The most recent guidance, the American College of Radiology (ACR) MR Safety Manual (2024) was selected for detailed analysis. A 5-point scale was assigned to the various levels in the hierarchy of hazard controls, from Elimination (score=5, most effective) to Personal Protective Equipment (score=1, least effective). MR safety practices recommended in the ACR MR Safety Manual were surveyed and scored using the 5-point scale. The safety practices were grouped by category of hazard addressed (e.g. main field, radio-frequency field, gradient field).

Results: Overall, Administrative Controls were the most common controls, followed by Engineering Controls. Controls within each hazard category featured a range of HHC scores, and all categories were predominantly served by Administrative Controls.

Conclusion: The analysis presented in this work could serve as a tool to analyze choices made in the deployment of safety measures, to motivate decision- or policy-making, as a tool for assessment of MR safety programs, or as an approach to motivate future work in the design of hazard controls for MR.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信