Example of a Pacemaker Pulse-Generator Which Could Present Dangerous Contraindications For MRI Exams

The review has been requested by Robert Russo, MD, with Scripps Research Institute. A copy of Dr. Russo’s request can be viewed here.

The public comment period is open through July 28, 2010, and I strongly encourage anyone with questions or concerns about the safety of MR imaging for patients with implanted cardiac devices (Dr. Russo correctly points out that CMS’ restriction fails to speak directly to implanted cardio-defibrillators, or ICD’s) to offer their comments to CMS.

The full explanation of the current restrictions on MR imaging of pacemaker patients (also aneurysm clip patients, and pregnant patients), as well as the instructions for reviewing other public comments or submitting your own, can be found here.

Click here for Tobias’ Twitter Profile

Many people in the medical industry, even within radiology, are quick to dismiss stories of accidents in the MRI suite as ‘fish stories’ which, though they may be based on a kernel of truth from the original telling, grow and grow as the story gets passed along the line. What may have begun as a pager getting drawn into the MRI scanner, winds up becoming a telephone repairman… or so goes the rationalization. And some seem to think that most MRI accident stories aren’t even really exaggerations, but rather pure fiction, akin to what you would see on some nighttime television medical drama. To these people, any account of a patient bed hitting the MRI could only have come from an episode of ER (as opposed to a real accident having become the basis of the TV show’s fictionalized version)…

Not that there haven’t been cases of gurneys drawn to MRI scanners before, because the MRI professional communities are awash in stories of all manners of ferromagnetic materials inadvertently becoming MRI-homing magnet missiles. Everything from personal computers, iPods, pagers, cell phones, anesthesia machines, ‘sand’ bags, medical gas (oxygen) cylinders, welding tanks, rolling carts, wheelchairs, hand-tools, canes & walkers, furniture, filing cabinets, hand-trucks, and the list goes on, and on, and on (to see pictures of a number of items, please check out this prior post). And yes, even hospital gurneys…

MRI Scanner Eats an ICU Patient Bed

Much to my chagrin, I’ve heard people dismiss the above as somebody’s Photoshop fantasy. Those sorts of statements, sadly, work to diminish all efforts toward MRI safety. But a recent account should, permanently, put to rest any question of whether this sort of thing can really happen. Late last year I posted a story that included links to a number of FDA MRI accident reports. One of the reports to the FDA’s MAUDE database described an incident in which a patient had their foot-ankle-leg injured when they were transported into the MRI scanner room on a conventional gurney (click here to download the PDF file from the FDA’s data). The date in the FDA’s anonymized report coincides very nicely with this somewhat-less-than-anonymous newspaper article that just came out…

Hoag Hospital has been fined $50,000 by the state Department of Public Health after an MRI patient on a metal gurney was magnetically pulled into the imaging machine, the hospital said Friday.

[Dr. Richard] Afable, [chief executive officer of Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian], said that last January a woman was taken into an MRI room on a metal gurney that was not compatible with the machine. The powerful magnet in the MRI pulled the gurney into the machine and the patient’s leg was trapped for about three minutes. She was taken to the emergency room and spent three days in the hospital for treatment of fractures in her lower leg and foot.

The above quote is taken from the January 22nd, 2009 article appearing on the Orange County Register’s website (click here to go straight to the article). Based on the dates, the description of the accident, and the patient injuries, it sounds as if the FDA account is the same incident as what is described in this newspaper article. The $50,000 fine may sound like steep punishment, but considering the cost to restore the magnet after the quench (described in the FDA account), the cost of downtime and lost revenue between the accident and the time the MRI was returned to service, the cost of care to treat the patient, the cost of internal safety / quality / regulatory investigations, the legal costs for the hospital, and any lawsuit settlement costs, the state’s penalty is likely to just be icing on the cake. The cost to the hospital for this transgression could very easily be into 7-figures! All of this simply demonstrates two critical points about MRI safety.

1. MRI accidents do happen, and at greater frequency and cost than many are led to believe.
2. The costs of the safety provisions to help prevent these accidents are peanuts when compared to the costs of accidents.

My soap-box pontificating on this point will likely become moot over the next many months. In a ‘perfect storm’ of regulatory and accreditation attention to MRI safety, we’re very likely to see requirements for MRI safety provisions, such as ferromagnetic detectors (which could have been instrumental in helping to avoid this gurney accident). I will share more about each of these efforts, as I’m able. In the meantime, MRI providers should put a great deal more stock in the validity of MRI accidents accounts and ask themselves, “Do I have adequate physical protections in place, beyond what’s written in my policy manual, to help prevent this sort of accident?” The likely answer is “No.”

Click here for Tobias’ Twitter Profile

External fixation and braces are typically very carefully screened for contraindication for MRI examination, but what may not be as frequently screened is the clothing underneath. We’ve received a report of a patient who received a burn from the specialty T-shirt, worn under their brace! The T-shirt, which included electrically-conductive silver fibers, purportedly acted as an RF antennae and produced focal heating.

This incident, like so many others, goes to show how so many risks in the MRI environment, such as concealed ferromagnetic threats, can be difficult to find if you don’t have the proper tools and knowledge with which to look for them.

Every MRI provider should avail themselves of the latest MRI safety information, standards, recommendations and peer accounts of accidents and near-misses in order to deploy the greatest protections, both for their patients and for their own risk management. For burn risks, this means diligent screening of everything that accompanies the patient into the bore. For ferromagnetic (projectile) risks, this includes the use of ferromagnetic detection systems.

Click here for Tobias’ Twitter Profile

ThermaCare HeatWrap Products Contain Iron And May Be Drawn Into MRI Scanners

According to the report, this patient was not injured and the MR staff was able to successfully remove the wrap from the MRI magnet. But any time you have ferromagnetic materials flying through the air near patients and staff, there is the very real risk of injury. Not only to people, but also to a million-dollar MRI scanner!

And assuming that it didn’t go flying, if there’s enough iron in this product that there’s that possibility, there’s likely enough iron to create some significant spatial distortions in the general vicinity of the wrap. And if the little iron ‘nuggets’ were to escape the wrap material and get under the covers to the bore of the magnet, you could wind up with shim problems that require a service call to correct.

According to the ThermaCare website:

“Protected inside ThermaCare^® HeatWraps are air-activated heat discs made of heat-generating materials (iron, charcoal, table salt and water).”

We’re in the process of testing the capabilities of the SAFESCAN® ferromagnetic detectors to detect these materials and I hope to have an update for you on this very soon.

In the meantime, whether you have the SAFESCAN® ferromagnetic screening products or not, please add these types of wraps to your ‘watch list’ of potentially dangerous materials to be kept out of your MRI suites.

Click here for Tobias’ Twitter Profile

As I mentioned in the article on the restoration of the full MAUDE narratives, I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request for the data, motivated by a concern that the problem with the online database would not be resolved in a timely fashion. Below are a handful of PDF files from my FOI request, enumerating just MRI projectile accidents (one of the five types of MRI ‘never events’) from part of the 2009 data…

• Bed tray-table (ambiguous injuries, including facial lacerations)

• Rolling cart seriously injures Siemens Apps Specialist (facial fractures & brain trauma)

• Flat-screen monitor hits research subject (facial fractures & surgery)

• Patient on gurney gets more of a ride than planned (foot, ankle, leg fractures)

• IV cart nearly strikes patient (near-miss)

• Knife slices patient (laceration requiring stitches)

• ‘Sand’ bag injures patient (brain hemorrhage, tongue laceration and facial injuries)

• Scissors seriously injures tech (embedded in forehead, surgical removal required)

The length and scariness of this list says two things to me… 1. Even without correcting for the presumed 1% reporting rate, this list is already too long suggesting that we have a long way to go, and 2. Why aren’t we taking a more proactive role in preventing these sorts of accidents when there are tools and techniques readily available?

Is it that crushing facial injuries, brain trauma and scissors embedded in someone’s forehead are collectively ‘minor exceptions’ even when these events (and many others) occur within weeks of one another?

To answer the rhetorical question posed by the title of this post, absolutely we continue to call them ‘never events’ because they should never happen. The fact that we have a long way to go to get close to that frequency is not an indictment of the validity of the goal, but it is a reason to call for professional / regulatory change if the industry can’t close the gap on its own.

The ECRI report references a publication from the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority that identified 148 reported cases of inadequate screening for ferromagnetic materials in 2008 in that state alone. Based on what we know about ferromagnetic material risks, my suspicion is that this 148 number is only a drop in the bucket of the actual rate.

Though, if we simply accept the 148 incidents, and multiply times 50 to get a rough approximation for the whole US, that indicates that we have 7,400 annual failed screenings for ferromagnetic material, each of which has the potential to injure patients, staff, or incapacitate a million-dollar MRI scanner.

What to do about this silent safety epidemic that is almost wholly avoidable? Well, it wouldn’t hurt to follow the recommendations of the ECRI Institute, number one of which is:

“Consider installing ferromagnetic detectors to screen patients and equipment. These are handheld wands and walk-through/wheel-through or walkby/ wheel-by detector systems positioned before the entrance to the MR environment.”

–’2010 TOP 10 TECHNOLOGY HAZARDS,’ ECRI Institute

So, we can add the ECRI Institute to the chorus of voices that includes the ACR, VA, JCAHO, and MR safety experts that all call for ferromagnetic detection as a part of pre-MRI screening.

If you would like your own copy of the ECRI publication, they are graciously making it available as a free download from their website.

If you would like information on the Mednovus SAFESCAN® ferromagnetic detection products, these are available on the company’s website.

A number of the MRI accident reports, when the narratives weren’t appearing, were little more than the name and mailing address of the MRI manufacturer. Today, if you want to read about the MR Technologist who had a pair of scissors magnetically-impelled into his forehead, you can do so.

MAUDE report of MRI + scissors vs. Tech.

Though I must admit to indulging sinister fantasies that the FDA was trying to ‘cover up’ some of these accidents, so I requested the information that wasn’t being displayed through the online MAUDE database through a good-old-fashioned Freedom of Information request. The result is that I have PDF copies of many stunning, alarming, and disconcerting accidents. And if you’re so inclined, you can download PDF copies of them, too…

• Rolling cart seriously injures Siemens Apps Specialist (facial fractures & brain trauma)

• Flat-screen monitor hits research subject (facial fractures & surgery)

• Patient on gurney gets more of a ride than planned (foot, ankle, leg fractures)

• IV cart nearly strikes patient (near-miss)

• Knife slices patient (laceration requiring stitches)

• ‘Sand’ bag injures patient (brain hemorrhage, tongue laceration and facial injuries)

• Scissors seriously injures tech (embedded in forehead, surgical removal required)

• Bed tray-table (ambiguous injuries, including facial lacerations)

And the above accidents only represent a proportion of the collected number of accidents for little more than half of 2009!

The above list should not scare anyone out of getting an MRI exam. It is meant to illustrate just how far we have yet to go to eliminate the ‘pilot error’ types of accidents which continue to jeopardize patients, staff, and millions of dollars of MRI equipment.

Sometime in February or March, we should have access to the complete 2009 MAUDE data. Early indications already suggest that we’re on track for a dismal year-end report, with a 20% (or more) growth in accident numbers.

Continue to stay tuned for the latest information on MRI accidents and – more importantly – the tools and protocols that can help reduce the risks.

Link

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the Guidelines, they are the design requirements that are cited by the Joint Commission and, at last count, 42 of the 50 U.S. State Departments of Health. Technically, they aren’t a building code, but the function in almost the exact same way. For the first time, the Guidelines are going to have specific MRI suite design requirements for patient safety.

2010 Guidelines

The 2010 edition of the Guidelines are purported to codify the single most often cited MRI suite safety design criteria, the 5-gauss line (or three-dimensional bubble, more accurately). The design must necessarily control access to locations where the static magnetic field is present at strengths of 5-gauss or more.

the 2010 Guidelines will also define situational-awareness requirements for suite layouts. These will include a requirement that the patient can be seen inside the scanner from the operators’ console location, and that the operator has direct visual control of the entrance to the MR scanner room.

The unique challenges of infection control and handwashing in the MRI environment are also explicitly addressed, for the first time, in the new Guidelines.

And one of my favorite provisions is the new requirement that MRI suites be designed to follow the ACR 4-Zone model for screening and access controls, including ferromagnetic detection systems!

The Guidelines publication is undergoing a significant organizational overhaul along with the regular content update, so I don’t have specific section citations to where the new MRI safety design requirements will be (though MRI probably won’t have the same section numbers as the current, 2006, edition has). My understanding, however, is that the publication will be released on schedule in January, so it is only a very short time until we can verify the specific contents and section numbers.

It is particularly encouraging that these new requirements validate what the some of the best MRI providers have been doing for years. Clearly MRI site-safety, including ferromagnetic detection, can no longer be regarded as simply “a good idea.” With the 2010 edition of Guidelines, we will have one more codified example of how these elements are truly part of the contemporary standard of care.

If you would like more information about the Guidelines, including information on how to order a copy of the document, please click here.

Link

Just how much is the settlement? Well that’s (temporarily) subject to a little ‘good news – bad news’ dichotomy.

The good news is that the settlement is not confidential and will be part of the public record. The bad news is that we will have to wait a month or so until all of the formal paperwork is filed with the court to become part of the public record. The parties to the suit (and now the settlement) have agreed to keep everything on the down-low and not seek any publicity associated with the resolution. In short, they’re not talking.

My understanding is that Westchester Medical Center’s parent organization settled on behalf of itself, and the director of radiology / owner of the MRI management company, and the technologists who had been named. This settlement may, ironically, have been both enabled and motivated by the fact that GE had been dismissed as a defendant to the suit in a pre-trial motion.

I can’t begin to fathom the difficulty for the family, reliving their greatest loss through nearly a decade of incessant litigation. In that context, I can fully appreciate the desire to resolve the suit and avoid a trial. I have made no secret, however, of the fact that I wanted a public trial, replete with special reports from Sanjay Gupta televised on CNN.

Why would I want to shine such a glaringly bright light on our industry? Not out of any lack of sympathy for the family. Not to feed an irrational panic about what is one of the safest medical services available. But to focus attention on how we can eliminate at least 90% of all the MRI accidents through changes to operations and protocols. I even had a ‘dream team’ list of non-monetary concessions I wanted to see from the various parties.

From Westchester Medical Center: I wanted the hospital to honor the original promise of transparency made by then-hospital President and CEO, Edward Stolzenberger. I wanted articles, presentations, papers, that explained what went wrong, and what interventions they’ve developed (or that others have developed that they support). I’d like to see a real failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) for this accident.

From GE Healthcare: I wanted to see a new corporate policy that every MRI projectile accident for magnets under GE’s care of which they’re notified (as in “please come and pull out this wheelchair,” or, “we got the wheelchair out, but we need to have this busted coil replaced,” or, “did we ever tell you about what happened here last week?”) to be recorded. Three things should happen. The event should be recorded in the magnet’s service history. A letter should be sent to the client site, notifying them that the record of this accident (and the grave safety risk that it presented) has been entered in the service history. And an incident report should be filed with the FDA for their Medwatch database.

The Colombini family: I do know that one of the principal motivations for the family was to try and make sure that similar accidents don’t happen to other families. I would like to see them lend their name to the development of a fund dedicated to the promotion of MRI safety. In fact, it could be something like an endowed faculty position, but with an ad hoc expert paid to provide presentations or develop materials free from institutional bias. I can even think of someone I’d nominate for the ‘Colombini MR Safety Chair’… the name (absurdly) rhymes with “banal.”

Do I think that these things can still happen without their having been a trial and jury verdict? Yes, they can. My fear, however, is that each of the parties involved would like nothing more than for this entire event to ‘slip quietly into the night’ and fade from everyone’s memory. And while I understand that motivation, I’m afraid that this will rob us of the ability to leverage meaningful change from the MRI industry that would make the next fatality less likely.

UPDATE: Details of the lawsuit settlement are available here.

The first of the three motions decided was from GE Healthcare, seeking to be excused, altogether, as a defendant in the case. The trial judge granted GE’s motion, citing (primarily) Riegel v. Medtronic which gives manufacturers of medical devices very broad protections in state courts because the devices have been vetted for safety at the federal level.

The second outstanding motion, which was one filed by the Colombini family’s attorney, sought the ability to reinstate punative damages claims against GE Healthcare for their involvement in the accident. This motion was rendered moot when the judge granted GE’s motion to be excused from the case, entirely.

The last of the decided motions was a smorgasbord of requests of the remaining (non-GE) defendants to dismiss claims against assorted defendants, to disallow punitive damages against some defendants, and to disallow claims of ‘emotional distress’ by the father of the boy.

• The judge dismissed all causes of action against the senior MR technologist in the suite at the time of the accident because (1) it was not demonstrated that he bore any responsibility for a safe suite environment (in fact the judge’s decision defines the limits of his responsibility to the scanner room, itself), and (2) he was not the tech administering the scan for the boy and therefore had no direct responsibility for his care. The judge’s notes also diminish the technologists’ role in safety by stating that they are not MD’s and had minimal safety training.
• The judged refused to dismiss claims agains New York Medical College (affiliated with the hospital) based on the College’s contention that NYMC had no direct role in training of persons involved in the accident, allowing this issue to be tried in court.
• The judge dismissed claims associated with the father’s contention that he suffered emotional distress based on the legal definition which requires that the person filing the claim feel “unreasonbly threatened by bodily harm” directly to them. That the father felt that his son was unreasonably threatened falls outside the legal definition for the basis of a claim of emotional distress.
• The judge refused to dismiss claims for punitive damages against UIMA, the company that ran the MRI unit for the hospital, allowing that the failure to provide complete and effective safety training may ammount to “utter indifference or conscious disregard for the safety of others.”
• The judge stated that she thought that the technologist administering the scan exaggerated her job duties when she had previously stated that technologists were the MRI suite “gatekeepers” with responsibility to keep a “watchful eye” to prevent ferromagnetic material from being brought in. Since, per the judge, overall suite safety was NOT deemed a reasonable responsibility of a technologist, the judge disallowed the possibility of punitive damages against the tech that administered the scan.
• Finally, the judge dismissed any action for punitive damages against the radiologist who served both as the hospital’s Director of Radiology and president of UIMA, the contractor providing MRI services to the hospital, because he “had no experience supervising MRI facilities . . . and did not view himself as having taken on any supervisory responsibilities with respect to the MRI facility. . .”

If we accept that some level of MRI safety should be a basic right of everyone inside the MRI suite (including staff), then we need to identify who has a role in making sure that MRI safety is actually implemented.

My view is that all parties involved in providing and administering MRI exams have an obligation to the safety of the patient. This includes the organizations who own and operate the scanners for establishing standards and providing applicable training and verifying competencies, directors / administrators / safety officers who have broad duties on behalf of the organization for the protection of patient safety, any person — whether MD, RN or technologist — who works in the MR environment, sites where accidents occur to report incidents in which there was a reasonable potential for harm, and MR equipment manufacturers to actively collect, report, and distribute details of accidents that might help others to better protect against these risks. These responsibilities are both institutional and individual.

If the judge’s decisions on these motions are not challenged (as has happened previously in this case), we should be inching closer towards a real trial date. As of the date of this post, the case is still scheduled to be fully resolved by early January of 2010. It remains to be seen whether that deadline will hold, or be pushed back.

If you would like to read this most recent decision by the judge on the three pre-trial motions she decided, it is available for download. Just click here to download the judge’s decision in Word format (.doc) from the blog site New York Injury Cases. To see the blog site, just click here.

Of course, if you come back here to the ‘MRI Metal Detector’ blog, or subscribe to the RSS updates (click here for more information on the free RSS subscription), I’ll provide you with any and all updates as I get them.

UPDATE: Details of the finalized lawsuit settlement are available here.