One can only presume that this is the commentary that US States and radiology accreditation agencies have to offer on the contemporary state of MRI safety. After all, there’s been nothing more than navel-gazing when it comes to measurable changes in standards for MRI providers. Let’s break it down…

This first installment will look specifically at MRI safety standards as implemented by the American College of Radiology (ACR). By tackling them, first, I don’t mean to suggest that they’re the only concern with respect to MRI safety. In fact, in a weird, schizophrenic way, ACR has simultaneously advanced and held back MRI safety. More on that towards the end of this piece.

MRI Accident Rate Slide from ACR Quality & Safety Forum 2010

The American College of Radiology has distinguished itself with the premier industry best practice publication on MR safety, the Guidance Document for Safe MR Practices. Originally named the White Paper on MR Safety (published in 2002), its name switched to the Guidance Document with a 2004 update. I was fortunate enough to be a part of the ACR’s MR Safety Committee (the authoring body) for what became the 2007 edition.

When the Committee met at the ACR headquarters in the late summer of 2006, to review drafts and collectively decide on the final revisions, it was noted that the ACR’s contemporary MR accreditation program didn’t actually require any of the safety provisions found in the (then twice published) Guidance Document. In that meeting, five years ago, the MR Safety Committee unanimously voted to formally request that the ACR incorporate safety provisions found in the Guidance Document in the MR accreditation program (this was frightfully easy since the representatives of the College were there in the room with us).

Surrounding that Committee meeting in 2006, Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis (NSF) was the hot topic in MR safety. The radiology community and trade press were trading speculation, recrimination, and early analyses. The 2006 Guidance Document was held until it could be published with the collected best available information regarding NSF, which meant that it wasn’t released until early 2007.

Perhaps the ACR was waiting for the new Guidance Document to be released, I thought, so they didn’t implement any of the safety requirements in their MR accreditation program prior to the new version’s publication. So the rest of 2006 came and went, as did all of 2007, without so much as a hint that the MR Accreditation program would include the Guidance Document‘s safety standards. Nearly all of 2008 passed the same way, with no indication that the ACR intended to include it’s own MRI safety standards in its accreditation requirements. But things showed promise of moving forward at the 2008 RSNA meeting.

I learned that the ACR’s MR accreditation committee was entertaining the notion of including some elements of the Guidance Document’s safety standards and that they had asked one of their physicists (not anyone from the MR Safety Committee) to draft a checklist set of safety standards. Purportedly, at that 2008 RSNA meeting, it was proposed that the 30+ page Guidance Document be distilled to about a half-dozen check-box question. One could argue that ‘something was better than nothing’, but the notion that these questions actually captured the essential safety elements of the Guidance Document was laughable. It didn’t fly. Back to square one.

Fast forward about a year, to summer 2009, when, at the AHRA annual meeting, representatives from ACR were giving a status update about accreditation standards. It was a packed meeting as the writing was on the wall about CMS requiring modality accreditation through the new MIPPA law. In that presentation, the ACR representatives stated that ACR would be incorporating elements of the Guidance Document‘s safety principles in the MR Accreditation program. Precisely how this was to happen was yet to be determined, but it would happen.

In early 2010 CMS announced that the ACR would be one of three approved accreditation bodies to accredit imaging providers’ CT, PET, and MRI scanners to qualify for reimbursement under the MIPPA law.

I was tremendously optimistic that this new requirement status would help to remove the concern within the ACR that implementing safety standards, unilaterally, would make other accreditation programs comparatively easier, and therefore more appealing to MRI providers. Now providers would be required to get accreditation, and ACR was clearly the front-runner in modality accreditation of the three named agencies. I called the ACR and spoke with a senior person within the organization about the safety standards. That person quickly burst my bubble…

Despite the public promise to incorporate elements of the Guidance Document from the prior year, in 2010 the ACR representative told me there would be no such plan going forward because they were now an approved accrediting body under the MIPPA law. According to this person, it was determined that it would be far too ‘bureaucratically burdensome’ to have to go through CMS (a step which would be required for any change to the accreditation structure, now that it was CMS sanctioned) to update it’s standards to include the safety elements in the Guidance Document. The irony of a federal law mandating quality and safety standards being the reason that an accrediting agency claimed it couldn’t enact safety standards wasn’t lost on me. Fortunately, I was just about to get the chance to talk with the principal radiology quality and safety person at CMS to let her know what I thought of their safety-inhibiting bureaucracy.

In the summer of 2010, I was a participant in a joint presentation on MRI safety between the FDA and CMS.  One of the CMS representatives in that presentation was Jeannie Miller, Deputy Director of the Clinical Standards Group. After that presentation, I followed up with Ms. Miller and asked her about the ACR contention that it was now too ‘burdensome’, because of their new role with CMS, to add safety standards to their existing MR Accreditation program. In a word, Ms. Miller was incredulous.

She told me that, just a few weeks prior to our conversation, the ACR had submitted their breast MR accreditation program to CMS for their approval. How long did the ‘burdensome’ CMS bureaucratic review take for this new and unprecedented MR accreditation program? Less than two weeks! Ms. Miller was dumbfounded at the suggestion that CMS would make it anything but easy for a quality and safety standard to enhance its safety components. So, if CMS ‘burdensome bureaucracy’ is just a smoke screen, what’s the real reason ACR is unwilling to heed the recommendation of their own MR Safety Committee, and honor the promise they made two years ago, to incorporate substantive safety requirements in their MR Accreditation program? Could it be money?

Though ACR is one of the accrediting bodies from which CMS mandates that outpatient participants must obtain accreditation, it’s still one of three. While ACR is seeking to ‘make the pie bigger’ by advocating for mandatory accreditation of more modalities than just CT, MRI, and PET and for accreditation of hospital-based imaging, nuclear medicine and radiation therapy, they’re also looking at their proportional slice of that pie. Were they to unilaterally decide on MR safety enhancements to their accreditation program, it might make providers looking for the lowest-threshold CMS accreditation steer clear of ACR. I suspect that the ACR’s thinking goes that, by enacting MR safety standards, they’re likely to lose prospective members and the revenue that their participation in the ACR’s accreditation program provides.

So we’re left with this profound contradiction presented by the ACR. One one hand, they have produced the industry’s best MRI safety best-practice document. On the other hand, they’re playing ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ when it comes to implementing the real-world safety benefits that their own Guidance Document.

And it’s not as if the ACR has any doubts about the value of the Guidance Document… as a safety tool. They have brought together many of the best minds on MR safety, four times now (the 4th release of the Guidance Document is likely to come out in the 2nd half of 2011). The MR Safety Committee lead the charge in disseminating best practice standards relative to NSF screening. And at the ACR’s own radiology quality and safety forum, last year, they were presented with a paper jointly authored by their own MR Safety Committee chair, Dr. Emanuel Kanal, and me, which showed that the explicit provisions in the Guidance Document could mitigate at least 80% of the clinical MRI accidents (see the video of that presentation, here).

So, ACR, you’ve been asked to implement the Guidance Document in your MR Accreditation standards. You’ve said that you would do so. Then you reneged on that promise with an excuse that’s been shown to be tissue-thin. At the same time, representatives have testified before Congress that in the interest of safety, there should be more accreditation of imaging and therapy devices in more healthcare settings.

Explain to me one more time why it is that you can’t honor your promise to include MRI safety standards in your MR Accreditation program?

Click here for Tobias’ Twitter Profile

PS: Tune back in for the next installment, which will be taking a close look at the Joint Commission’s role in MRI safety.

Damn! I’m impressed, particularly since the abstract also states that this meeting was hastily called in response to articles appearing, starting in January of this year, in the New York Times on radiology and radiation therapy accidents. Such a coordinated response by the professional societies. Such representation from the professional community at a time when conference and professional development budgets are being slashed. How does this compare with MRI?

Well, MRI accidents haven’t been the focus of a string of national news articles, and I certainly wouldn’t begrudge safety-minded professionals within radiation oncology from seizing upon the public attention to address longstanding safety issues… but how do the raw numbers compare? Fortunately, we have an excellent resource for raw numbers and we don’t have to idly wonder.

The FDA’s medical device adverse event database, MAUDE, is much maligned (much of the maligning is by me), but its one redeeming value is that it gives us a snapshot, over time, of medical-device related adverse events.

I searched MAUDE, and from 1999 – 2009, three ‘radiation therapy’ product codes (JAI, LHN, IWB) accounted for 165 total adverse event reports. Some of those included things like pinched fingers while the couch was moving, but some were also the more serious adverse events, such as incorrect dose administration.

During the same 10 year period, the MAUDE database revealed that MRI (product code LNH) has 838 adverse event reports! That’s 5 times as many as radiation therapy! Similar to the radiation therapy reports, there were also adverse event accounts that were spurious, at best, but mixed in were accounts of broken bones, penetrating wounds, and even death, related to MRI hazards.

At the risk of being repetitive, I do not begrudge or belittle the current efforts at making radiation therapy safer for all who administer and receive it. Everywhere there is error in healthcare delivery, we have a duty to work to squeeze it out of existence, and nowhere is that mission more important than in the highly technical arenas of radiology, nuclear medicine and radiation therapy. My frustration, however, lies in the fact that larger safety issues, and safety issues that clearly have a dangerous trajectory, are being ignored.

I would love to see a collaborative forum of 14 organizations, MR manufacturers, and regulatory agencies from multiple countries gather to speak to the alarming growth of MR accidents. I’d love to see 400 professionals convene for a conference dedicated to practical, actionable and direct solutions to our contemporary MR safety needs. Unfortunately, many organizations that have similar duties to the MR community are ‘just too busy’ to look at MR safety right now.

I’ve said it before (and will say it again despite the fact that I hope I am completely and utterly wrong), it may take another high-profile MRI fatality to shake-off the professional indifference to MR safety issues.

Click here for Tobias’ Twitter Profile

Also, make no mistake that I find the highly publicized flock of radiation exposure accidents abhorrent oversights. Whether it was equipment calibration, record errors, or simple human foul-ups, each of these violates the simple truth of the special obligation to patient safety that imaging has. But I think we have to look at these accidents squarely, and assess what went wrong, what the adverse outcomes were, and the appropriate preventative and mitigating steps are before we promote knee-jerk responses.

I am enthralled by MRI. And while my life and livelihood are by no means tied exclusively to this one modality, I am certainly doing myself no worldly favor by suggesting that the ‘simple fix’ of moving more patients to the safe solution, MRI, is neither simple nor necessarily safe (or safer, which is really the object). Hear me out…

Medical radiation accidents, in most of the reported cases, involve over-exposure of the individual. While there are extreme examples of this that result in clear, severe and sometimes fatal outcomes, most these over-exposures are similar in incremental lifetime risk to that of having spent your teenage years sun-worshiping, instead of worshiping bottles SPF 30. The best estimations for many of these accidents are that they involve modest increases to lifetime risks of developing cancer… outcomes that will manifest themselves often 20 years or more after the exposure.

It should not be forgotten that MRI is not without its risks. While they aren’t insidious, clandestine biological risks like lifetime cancer probabilities, they are equally serious. Recent examples include burns (up to a severity requiring amputation) magnetically-induced projectiles breaking bones or crushing body parts, and earlier this year a woman who was struck, killed, and her corpse magnetically-pinned to the MRI scanner!

Because the negative effects of medical ionizing radiation exposure (from X-ray based modalities, radiopharmecuticals or beam therapies) often won’t be realized for decades, particular consideration should be paid to treating the young, those under 30. Whenever feasible and clinically appropriate, these patients should be considered for non-ionizing exams and therapies, such as MRI or ultrasound, in lieu of CT. But we shouldn’t simply redirect everyone who can name all three Jonas Brothers to MRI, certainly not with how well we’ve been managing those risks.

While it hasn’t made Walt Bogdanich’s New York Times series on radiology accidents, the last several years of MRI accident data show accidents and adverse events quadrupling over four years! MRI is currently still an extraordinarily safe imaging option, but the meteoric growth in accidents, and the continued acceleration of that growth, are each frightening.

I have a ten-year-old daughter, and we have (reluctantly) acceded to her having a fluoroscopic exam, and I would choose an MRI, hands-down, for anything for which it was equally diagnostic. But each year that I watch the accident-trend data, the calculus gets a little bit more difficult. The MRI grows less appealing, and this is egregious because it should be the irrefutably safe option.

You see, we know what causes MRI accidents, and we know how to prevent them. The fact of quadrupled MRI accidents isn’t because of sunspots, or statistical clusters, or global warming, or MRI voodoo dolls, or anything else similarly beyond our understanding or control. The fact of quadrupled MRI accidents is because we, individually and collectively, fail to act. We fail to follow industry best practices. We fail to even expect best practices of our providers!

We should directly confront the issues of radiology safety, and not just those that land on the pages of the NY Times. In imaging we have a particular obligation to protect our patients, including those going for MRI.

Click here for Tobias’ Twitter Profile

PS: They’re Nick, Joe and Kevin (the Jonas Brothers). You could either think I’m under 30 (‘Ha’), or realize that I have a pre-teen daughter… Take your pick.

If you’d like to watch it, it’s in 3 parts. The first of 3 is available here (requires QuickTime viewer).

Click here for Tobias’ Twitter Profile

In nearly concurrent moves, the Joint Commission (JC) unveils their just-developed Advanced Imaging (AI) accreditation program, the FDA is clamoring for new authority to regulate medical device safety (or gearing-up to use authority that it’s been hiding for safe-keeping, that isn’t exactly clear to me), the US Congress whips together a set of hearings on the issue, and, at those hearings,  the American College of Radiology (ACR) recommends that the Feds expand the scope of the AI accreditation requirement to include radiation therapy and to apply the expanded accreditation requirements to hospitals, too.

Whew, that’s a lot of ground covered for radiology in just the last few weeks! Wait a minute… who is that sitting in the backseat? Who has been drug through all of the hullabaloo about radiation exposure and patient safety without once having been considered, individually? MRI, that’s who.

So congress is alarmed at the lack of regulatory oversight on ionizing modalities, such as CT or beam therapies, hmm? The ACR couldn’t get to the hearings fast enough to recommend that the Congress mandate both deeper and broader accreditation requirements (which the ACR would be pleased to provide, by the way). The argument in favor of these enhanced accreditation requirements is that the patchwork body of existing state requirements are simply inadequate to protect patient safety.

What was the reaction to the fact that there are zero (and I’m not being dramatic here… I mean zero) requirements at state or federal levels for physical safety around MRI systems? Or what was the reaction to the fact that the FDA’s own data shows a near-four-fold increase in the number of MRI accidents in recent years? What about the fact that in states like Missouri, where I was born, don’t even require any credentialling of technologists who administer MRI exams? (Seriously, in Missouri you have to have vastly more proof-of-competence to give someone colored highlights in their hair than administer their MRI exam.)

MRI Accidents As Reported To The FDA

What was the reaction? None. Nada. Zilch.

Why? Because MRI has just been ‘along for the ride,’ apparently.

Regulation:

It’s important to realize that the bulk of radiology’s regulatory oversight grew out of federal standards for ionizing radiation protection of workers on the Manhattan project. Those standards became the template to be adopted and adapted by the individual states. The FDA, which regulates the approval of radiology equipment as diagnostic or therapeutic device, has left the oversight of the safety of the administration of that exam / procedure to the states.

What resulted was a patchwork of mix-matched state regulations governing ionizing radiation devices that use X-rays (such as CT and mammography), and radioisotopes (such as in nuclear medicine and many therapies).

In the 80′s, MRI came along. Since MRI didn’t use ionizing radiation, it was almost as if the absence of regulation was seen as ‘proof’ that MRI was safe. Neither hospitals nor the equipment manufacturers were interested in promoting regulation for this new modality, and quite honestly most state authorities and elected officials didn’t really understand what MRI was (and their inaction probably saved us from some very bad legislation at the time… look no further than the contemporary European Physical Agents Directive to see what ill-informed regulation can do to MRI).

Accreditation:

Let there be no mistake about it, MRI accreditation efforts have been driven primarily by payors. Apart from the last few weeks, the overall accreditation program balance between image quality and patient safety has leaned heavily towards the side of image quality. Let’s use the ACR’s MRI accreditation program as the example…

To be accredited by the ACR for MRI, there is a long list of quality controls that have to be implemented regularly. And since image interpretation is largely a qualitative skill, the ACR went so far as to develop a specialized imaging phantom to distill otherwise-subjective quality differences into objective tests (can you see the proper number of spokes on the phantom image?). There are logs, tests, data-collection, reports, all necessary to help assure that the machine is capable of producing pictures of a minimum requisite quality.

ACR Phantom Showing Radiating 'Spokes' Of Contrast Dots

At the same time that the ACR has made such remarkable efforts at standardizing measures of quality, they have largely ignored even their own MR Safety Committee’s request to include physical safety criteria in the MR accreditation program.

In 2006, during the MR Safety Committee’s working session to develop what became the ACR Guidance Document for Safe MR Practices: 2007, the Safety Committee, unanimously, issued a formal request to the College to include the standards developed by the Safety Committee as a part of the MR accreditation program. Four years later, there is no objective evidence that this formal request has been taken seriously.

Both the ACR and the other primary imaging accrediting body, the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC), assert that their standards for MRI accreditation are serious and robust, yet neither have identified how their MRI safety standards have successfully responded to the nearly 300% increase in MRI accidents in the last several years. If these accrediting bodies are serious about MRI safety, how can the reconcile the alarming MRI accident growth with their wet-noodle protections?

I have left the Joint Commission out of this evaluation of accreditation standards because – prior to this year – the JC has not offered a single modality-specific accreditation standard for MRI, or any other imaging device. From an MRI patient safety perspective, they’ve been virtually a non-factor, even though their accreditation services cover thousands of providers across the US that offer MRI services.

So today, MRI is lumped-in with CT and PET as a part of the AI accreditation program. And AI accreditation is largely seen as the way to address the headline-grabbing concerns about ionizing radiation exposure.

To be perfectly clear, I support greater attention to standards and safeguards for ionizing modalities, but I find the omission of any mention of MRI safety in the current conversation surrounding the Advanced Imaging accreditation program as an indictment of the earnestness of this as a patient safety campaign.

I think that accreditation should follow the path that the ACR has laid out, and I don’t begrudge them their efforts at positioning themselves as the preferred accrediting body for this expanded role. However, I think that a little ‘truth in advertising’ is called for (one could even call it a quid pro quo).

The ACR (and IAC, who I imagine is equally interested in expanded mandatory accreditation) should balance their own indisputable self-interest in new accreditation requirements with some substantive action on objective MRI physical safety requirements. Standards for MRI safety have literally been ‘laid at their doorstep,’ now all they have to do is adopt them.

If we fail to look at the escalating rates of accidents and injuries in MRI and address them as a part of the broader ‘radiology safety’ conversation; if we focus solely on ionizing radiation to the exclusion of all else, then we will again ignore the giant magnetic elephant in the room… the one that represents the alarming rate at which we’re increasingly injuring MRI patients.

Click here for Tobias’ Twitter Profile