Medical imaging practice changed dramatically with the introduction of digital imaging. Although digital imaging has many advantages, it also has made it easier to delete images that are not of diagnostic quality. Mistakes in imaging—from improper patient positioning, patient movement during the examination, and selecting improper equipment—could go undetected when images are deleted. Such an approach would preclude a reject analysis from which valuable lessons could be learned. In the analog days of radiography, saving the rejected films and then analyzing them was common practice among radiographers. In principle, reject analysis can be carried out easier and with better tools (ie, software) in the digital era, provided that rejected images are stored for analysis. Reject analysis and the subsequent lessons learned could reduce the number of repeat images, thus reducing imaging costs and decreasing patient exposure to radiation. The purpose of this study, which was conducted by order of the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate, was to investigate whether hospitals in the Netherlands store and analyze failed imaging and, if so, to identify the tools used to analyze those images.
DOCUMENT
Abstract—A survey about radiation protection in pediatric radiology was conducted among 22 general and seven children’s hospitals in the Netherlands. Questions concerned, for example, child protocols used for CT, fluoroscopy and x-ray imaging, number of images and scans made, radiation doses and measures taken to reduce these, special tools used for children, and quality assurance issues. The answers received from 27 hospitals indicate that radiation protection practices differ considerably between general and children’s hospitals but also between the respective general and children’s hospitals. It is recommended that hospitals consult each other to come up with more uniform best practices. Few hospitals were able to supply doses that can be compared to the national Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs). The ones that could be compared exceeded the DRLs in one in five cases, which is more than was expected beforehand.
LINK
Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for medical x-ray procedures are being implemented currently in the Netherlands. By order of the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate, a survey has been conducted among 20 Dutch hospitals to investigate the level of implementation of the Dutch DRLs in current radiological practice. It turns out that hospitals are either well underway in implementing the DRLs or have already done so. However, the DRLs have usually not yet been incorporated in the QAsystem of the department nor in the treatment protocols. It was shown that the amount of radiation used, as far as it was indicated by the hospitals, usually remains below the DRLs. A procedure for comparing dose levels to the DRLs has been prescribed but is not Always followed in practice. This is especially difficult in the case of children, as most general hospitals receive few children. Health Phys. 108(4):462–464; 2015
DOCUMENT
Abstract—A survey was conducted among 20 Dutch hospitals about radiation protection for interventional fluoroscopy. This was a follow-up of a previous study in 2007 that led to several recommendations for radiation protection for interventional fluoroscopy. The results indicate that most recommendations have been followed. However, radiation-induced complications from interventional procedures are still often not recorded in the appropriate register. Furthermore, even though professionals with appropriate training in radiation protection are usually involved in interventional procedures, this often is not the case when these procedures are carried out outside the radiology department. Although this involvement is not required by Dutch law, it is recommended to have radiation protection professionals present more often at interventional procedures. Further improvements in radiation protection for interventional fluoroscopy may come from a comparison of dose-reducing practices among hospitals, the introduction of diagnostic reference levels for interventional procedures, and a more thorough form of screening and follow-up of patients
DOCUMENT
Dit artikel is een vertaling van het artikel “Digital Radiography Reject Analysis: Results of a Survey Among Dutch Hospitals” dat in de mei/juni 2020 editie van het blad Radiologic Technology is gepubliceerd. Korte samenvatting: In opdracht van de Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg is aan een steekproef van Nederlandse ziekenhuizen gevraagd hoe zij omgaan met medische beelden die worden afgekeurd. De resultaten laten zien dat de meeste ziekenhuizen deze opnames niet bewaren voor analyse.
DOCUMENT
Civil society as a social sphere is constantly subjected to change. Using the Dutch context, this article addresses the question whether religiously inspired engagement is a binder or a breakpoint in modern societies. The author examines how religiously inspired people in the Netherlands involve themselves in non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and voluntary activities. Religious involvement and social engagement in different European countries are compared and discussed. In addition, the author explores the models of civil society and applies these to both the Christian and Islamic civil society in the Netherlands. Using four religious ‘identity organizations’ as case studies, this article discusses the interaction of Christian and Islamic civil society related to secularized Dutch society. The character and intentions of religiously inspired organizations and the relationship between religious and secular involvement are examined. This study also focuses on the attitude of policymakers towards religiously inspired engagement and government policy on ‘identity organizations’ in the Netherlands.
DOCUMENT
Aim To provide insight into the basic characteristics of decision making in the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (SSAS) in Dutch heart centres with specific emphasis on the evaluation of frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL]. Methods A questionnaire was used that is based on the European and American guidelines for SSAS treatment. The survey was administered to physicians and non-physicians in Dutch heart centres involved in the decision-making pathway for SSAS treatment. Results All 16 Dutch heart centres participated. Before a patient case is discussed by the heart team, heart centres rarely request data from the referring hospital regarding patients’ functionality (n = 5), frailty scores (n = 0) and geriatric consultation (n = 1) as a standard procedure. Most heart centres ‘often to always’ do their own screening for frailty (n = 10), cognition/mood (n = 9), nutritional status (n = 10) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). During heart team meetings data are ‘sometimes to regularly’ available regarding frailty (n = 5), cognition/mood (n = 11), nutritional status (n = 8) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). After assessment in the outpatient clinic patient cases are re-discussed ‘sometimes to regularly’ in heart team meetings (n = 10). Conclusions Dutch heart centres make an effort to evaluate frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL for decision making regarding SSAS treatment. However, these patient data are not routinely requested from the referring hospital and are not always available for heart team meetings. Incorporation of these important data in a structured manner early in the decision-making process may provide additional useful information for decision making in the heart team meeting.
LINK
Introduction: In the Netherlands, Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) have not been based on a national survey as proposed by ICRP. Instead, local exposure data, expert judgment and the international scientific literature were used as sources. This study investigated whether the current DRLs are reasonable for Dutch radiological practice. Methods: A national project was set up, in which radiography students carried out dose measurements in hospitals supervised by medical physicists. The project ran from 2014 to 2017 and dose values were analysed for a trend over time. In the absence of such a trend, the joint yearly data sets were considered a single data set and were analysed together. In this way the national project mimicked a national survey. Results: For six out of eleven radiological procedures enough data was collected for further analysis. In the first step of the analysis no trend was found over time for any of these procedures. In the second step the joint analysis lead to suggestions for five new DRL values that are far below the current ones. The new DRLs are based on the 75 percentile values of the distributions of all dose data per procedure. Conclusion: The results show that the current DRLs are too high for five of the six procedures that have been analysed. For the other five procedures more data needs to be collected. Moreover, the mean weights of the patients are higher than expected. This introduces bias when these are not recorded and the mean weight is assumed to be 77 kg. Implications for practice: The current checking of doses for compliance with the DRLs needs to be changed. Both the procedure (regarding weights) and the values of the DRLs should be updated.
MULTIFILE
Background: Delirium is a high prevalent postoperative complication in older cardiac surgery patients and can have drastic consequence for the patient. Preventive interventions, diagnosis and treatment of delirium require specialized knowledge and skills. Objective: To gain insight in the current opinion and beliefs of nurses in hospitals concerning prevention, diagnosis and treatment of delirium in older hospital patients in general and specifically in older cardiac surgery patients. Methods: In a cross-sectional study from February to July 2010, we distributed a survey on beliefs on delirium care among 368 nurses in three hospitals in the Netherlands, in one hospital in all wards with older patients and in two hospitals in the cardiac surgery wards only. Results: Although in literature incidence rates up to 54.9% in cardiac surgery patients in hospitals are reported, with a response rate of 68% (250), half of the nurses believe that the incidence of delirium is not even 10%. Two thirds think that delirium in patients is preventable. Although, the Delirium Observation Scale is most often used for screening delirium, nearly all nurses do not routinely screen patients for delirium. Opinions on delirium of nurses working in cardiac surgery wards did not differ from nurses caring for older patients in other hospital wards. Conclusions: Nurses do have knowledge on delirium care, but there is a gap between the reported incidence in literature and the estimation of the occurrence of delirium by nurses. A two-way causal relationship emerges: because nurses underestimate the occurrence, they do not screen patients on a routine basis. And because they do not screen patients on a routine basis they underestimate the incidence.
LINK
The literature on how organizations respond to institutional pressure has shown that the individual decision-makers’ interpretation of institutional pressure played an important role in developing organizational responses. However, it has paid less attention to how this interpretation ultimately contributes to their range of organizational decisions when responding to the same institutional pressure. We address this gap by interviewing board members of U.S. and Dutch hospitals involved in adopting best practices regarding board evaluation. We found four qualitatively different cognitive frames that board members relied on to interpret institutional pressure, and which shaped their organizational response. We contribute to the literature on organizational response to institutional pressure by empirically investigating how decision-makers interpret institutional pressure, by suggesting prior experience and role definition as moderating factors of multidimensional cognitive frames, and by showing how these cognitive frames influence board members’ response to the same institutional pressure.
DOCUMENT
