Risk-based ultrasound probe quality assurance - a single center proof-of-concept study.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 ACOUSTICS Ultraschall in Der Medizin Pub Date : 2024-11-06 DOI:10.1055/a-2408-0259
Bálint Botz
{"title":"Risk-based ultrasound probe quality assurance - a single center proof-of-concept study.","authors":"Bálint Botz","doi":"10.1055/a-2408-0259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ultrasound probe quality assurance is an underserved and underregulated area in medical imaging. While several testing methods exist, their availability and adoption remains varied, and the frequency of testing is often insufficient. Here we aimed to conduct a user-driven simple and rapid probe quality testing approach and to evaluate its rationale.Testing was based on physical examination of probe integrity (all probes) and in-air reverberation check (for curvilinear and linear array probes), findings, as well as probe age were registered. Prior to assessment, probes were divided into a high-risk vs. a low-risk category, based on the perceived risk of probe damage as a result of the typical application (e.g., non-invasive vs. interventional, inpatient vs. point-of-care).17.4% of the low-risk and 31.4% of high-risk probes demonstrated physical wear or damage. Reverberation artifacts were significantly more frequent (68%) in the high-risk category vs. the low-risk one (29.4%). Probes with either physical or reverberation faults were significantly older on average.The simple, rapid investigational technique uncovered an alarming percentage of probe damage or faults. It also identified immediately solvable technical issues (e.g., poor cable contact mimicking dropout). High-risk probe usage resulted in an increased rate of reverberation errors and physical damage. Risk-based, frequent rapid observational testing of ultrasound probes could substantially improve both diagnostic quality and patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":49400,"journal":{"name":"Ultraschall in Der Medizin","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultraschall in Der Medizin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2408-0259","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ultrasound probe quality assurance is an underserved and underregulated area in medical imaging. While several testing methods exist, their availability and adoption remains varied, and the frequency of testing is often insufficient. Here we aimed to conduct a user-driven simple and rapid probe quality testing approach and to evaluate its rationale.Testing was based on physical examination of probe integrity (all probes) and in-air reverberation check (for curvilinear and linear array probes), findings, as well as probe age were registered. Prior to assessment, probes were divided into a high-risk vs. a low-risk category, based on the perceived risk of probe damage as a result of the typical application (e.g., non-invasive vs. interventional, inpatient vs. point-of-care).17.4% of the low-risk and 31.4% of high-risk probes demonstrated physical wear or damage. Reverberation artifacts were significantly more frequent (68%) in the high-risk category vs. the low-risk one (29.4%). Probes with either physical or reverberation faults were significantly older on average.The simple, rapid investigational technique uncovered an alarming percentage of probe damage or faults. It also identified immediately solvable technical issues (e.g., poor cable contact mimicking dropout). High-risk probe usage resulted in an increased rate of reverberation errors and physical damage. Risk-based, frequent rapid observational testing of ultrasound probes could substantially improve both diagnostic quality and patient safety.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于风险的超声探头质量保证--单中心概念验证研究。
超声探头质量保证是医学成像中一个服务不足、监管不力的领域。虽然有多种检测方法,但其可用性和采用情况仍然参差不齐,而且检测频率往往不足。在此,我们旨在采用一种用户驱动的简单快速探头质量检测方法,并对其合理性进行评估。检测基于探头完整性的物理检查(所有探头)和空气混响检查(曲线和线性阵列探头),检测结果和探头年龄都被记录在案。评估前,根据典型应用(如非侵入性与介入性、住院病人与护理点)导致探头损坏的预期风险,将探头分为高风险与低风险两类。与低风险类别(29.4%)相比,高风险类别中出现混响伪影的频率明显更高(68%)。存在物理或混响故障的探头平均年龄明显偏大。这种简单、快速的调查技术发现的探头损坏或故障比例惊人。它还能发现可立即解决的技术问题(例如,模拟掉线的电缆接触不良)。高风险探头的使用导致混响误差和物理损坏率上升。对超声探头进行基于风险的、频繁的快速观察测试可大大提高诊断质量和患者安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ultraschall in Der Medizin
Ultraschall in Der Medizin 医学-核医学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
8.80%
发文量
228
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ultraschall in der Medizin / European Journal of Ultrasound publishes scientific papers and contributions from a variety of disciplines on the diagnostic and therapeutic applications of ultrasound with an emphasis on clinical application. Technical papers with a physiological theme as well as the interaction between ultrasound and biological systems might also occasionally be considered for peer review and publication, provided that the translational relevance is high and the link with clinical applications is tight. The editors and the publishers reserve the right to publish selected articles online only. Authors are welcome to submit supplementary video material. Letters and comments are also accepted, promoting a vivid exchange of opinions and scientific discussions.
期刊最新文献
The impact of real-time ultrasound guidance on ventricular catheter placement in cerebrospinal fluid shunts - a single-center study. The reliability and validity of superb microvascular imaging as a potential disease activity marker in rheumatoid arthritis. Fetal cardiovascular function in a late-onset SGA and FGR cohort: CURIOSA study. Risk-based ultrasound probe quality assurance - a single center proof-of-concept study. Evaluation of placenta and fetal lung using shear wave elastography in gestational diabetes mellitus: An innovative approach.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1