Facilitating Collaboration Across the Radiology Department by Expanding Access to Real-Time CT Protocols.

Facilitating Collaboration Across the Radiology Department by Expanding Access to Real-Time CT Protocols - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice J Imaging Inform Med . 2025 Sep 25;39(3):2026–2040. doi: 10.1007/s10278-025-01658-5 Facilitating Collaboration Across the Radiology Department by Expanding Access to Real-Time CT Protocols Emi Eastman 1 , Barry D Pressman 1 , Vu Nguyen 1 , Lucien Zang 1 , Yifang Zhou 1, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Imaging, S. Mark Taper Foundation Imaging Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90048 USA ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2025 Jun 19; Revised 2025 Aug 5; Accepted 2025 Aug 15; Collection date 2026 Jun. © The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2025. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13230437  PMID: 40999296 Abstract CT protocols can provide valuable information and guidance to radiologists, technologists, physicists, schedulers, and nurses. However, accessibility to up-to-date information is limited in practice. Variable protocol formats, vendor-specific parameters, and the lack of a structured protocol change process generate multiple asynchronous versions of protocols. In addition, the need for user-dependent protocol content further hinders the success of establishing a usable online protocol site. To address these challenges, a centralized intranet hub was developed by integrating four essential components: vendor-neutral technical protocol reformatting, machine-neutral clinical protocol templates, user-dependent customized interface design, and automated publication of protocols on the intranet. The improved workflow streamlined the process of creating, disseminating, and utilizing protocols. The standardization of protocols and accessibility of information have facilitated collaboration among multidisciplinary teams for effective CT operation in the radiology department. Keywords: Online CT protocol update, Protocol access to multi-disciplinary team, Protocol templates, User-dependent protocol interfaces Introduction Computed tomography (CT) scans account for 63% of medical imaging examinations in the USA [ 1 ]. As technological advances lead to new features that enhance image quality and reduce radiation dose, protocols have evolved to be more complex and vendor-specific [ 2 ]. Meanwhile, substantial dose reduction efforts by imaging sites have led to frequent CT protocol changes, from clinical instructions to technical parameters. Continual protocol changes pose significant challenges to protocol management, likely resulting in asynchronous and fragmented protocol versions by different personnel. Laborious effort must be expended if a manual synchronization is conducted, and the process is difficult to sustain [ 3 ]. The complexity is aggravated by the variety of scanner models, the growing number of units, and the large number of protocols on each scanner. Vendor-specific naming conventions and variable protocol formats make technical protocol review and revision time-consuming and error-prone [ 4 ]. In reality, to ensure a correct examination is performed for the right patient, CT protocol access is essential to many members of a radiology department, from scheduling staff to radiologists, technologists, medical physicists, and nurses [ 5 ], as demonstrated in Fig. 1 . The task of protocol synchronization and the requirement for broader access call for a new tool to facilitate intra-departmental collaboration for quality and dose-saving CT studies. Fig. 1. Open in a new tab A centralized protocol hub provides a unified reference to all radiology members who need access to CT protocols Different approaches to managing CT protocols have been reported. Szczykutowicz et al. [ 8 ] proposed a wiki-based solution that housed clinical and technical protocol information [ 6 ]. The maintenance of the protocol update through manual entry can be labor-intensive, including the initial site population and subsequent updates. Labella and Zhang [ 6 ] developed a method of protocol parameter extraction with Python using protocol exports [ 4 ], but the scope of the study only included technical protocols for three models from two vendors. The use of vendor-specific parameters may also make cross-vendor comparisons difficult. Commercial solutions offered cloud-based protocol management services that allow users to view, modify, and edit technical protocols remotely, but the result is a disjointed solution without compatibility across vendors. Many are only available to recent scanner models, neglecting older scanners. Furthermore, technical protocol tables often have rows that are too wide to fit within a single page. Crucially, the clinical protocol aspect is still overlooked. The goal of this work is to address these challenges by establishing a new holistic approach to building a centralized CT protocol platform that can be updated daily with minimal intervention. We will also report how the multidisciplinary team benefits from its deployment. Methods Creating a sustainable CT protocol site requires close collaboration among physicists, technologists, and radiologists. It calls for a combination of file reorganization, in-house software solutions, and collaboration with the IT department. With the goal of automated site updates in mind, each element of our approach created an output that would serve as an input for the next step. In this manner, different components worked synergistically and allowed for a streamlined workflow. The details are described in this section. Overview of Workflow for Technical and Clinical Protocols The overall operational workflow is demonstrated in Fig. 2. For technical protocols, to address a wide variety of vendor-specific parameters, in-house software was developed to reformat the exported protocols into a vendor-neutral form, allowing for cross-comparisons regardless of the make or model. The software parsed the vendor-specific files, extracted the desired parameters, normalized vendor-specific values, and formatted the protocols to a page-wide form before feeding them to an Excel workbook. As for clinical protocols, a one-page, universal protocol template was created using Microsoft Excel to serve as a starting point for identified key fields of clinical CT protocols. The CT Manager and a technologist were responsible for creating or updating protocols using the template. A program written in Python was used to convert the technical and clinical protocols to HTML and PDF files, respectively. To reflect the update, the program revised the HTML code for the site published on the intranet. The intranet site displayed all CT protocol information in one centralized location, and an engine with a backend file structure was built to allow the site to be automatically populated with updated protocols daily. To make access easier for different personnel in the department, especially for the technologists prior to the specific exam, the link to the site was also embedded into the radiology information system (RIS). The software design is demonstrated in Fig. 3 . Further details of the design are presented in the following subsections. Fig. 3. Open in a new tab Back-end parsing and front-end publishing design diagrams Technical Protocol Export and Reformatting The first step in the transition to an online protocol site was to create an easily updatable technical protocol format where key parameters impacting image acquisition can be identified across all scanners. In their original format, the exported protocol files were difficult to use. They contained either hundreds of pages with the key parameters scattered in various places or vendor-specific tables that were excessively long, making the review and comparison impractical. To proceed with a unified format for all protocols from different vendors, the key information for image acquisition and primary reconstruction was carefully identified. Instead of manually maintaining a protocol book with all acquisition and reconstruction parameters for the protocols on each CT scanner, we took advantage of the exported protocol files in either CSV or XML file formats. As shown in the top section of Fig. 2 , Python 3.8.3 was used to parse and store the values deemed essential. They included tube potential and current, tube rotation time, dose modulation reference value, pitch, collimation, volume CT dose index (CTDI vol ), and others in accordance with the protocol review requirements of the ACR-AAPM Technical Standard for Diagnostic Medical Physics Performance Monitoring of Computed Tomography (CT) Equipment [ 7 ]. XML files were parsed using the ElementTree XML module, and CSV files were parsed using the Pandas module. A full list of libraries and versions used in each solution can be found in Appendix A. Reported scan acquisition parameters were found to slightly vary depending on the vendor and scanner model. For example, on some old scanners, the table feed is reported instead of a pitch value. On other scanner models, the effective tube current–time product (effective mAs) is reported instead of tube current (mA). These differences were standardized using the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) CT Lexicon generic descriptions as a reference [ 8 ]. The newly standardized parameters made it easier to compare protocols regardless of make or model. A list of vendor-specific keywords is included in Appendix B. Multiple iterations of random sampling of parameters from each make and model were manually compared to evaluate accuracy. After the initial evaluation, errors were detected through daily use by physicists during dose tracking investigations. In these instances, physicists cross-checked the protocol used on PACS with the reformatted protocols. When discrepancies were detected, an additional check with the scanner console was used to verify. Reported errors were investigated and addressed to improve the accuracy of the protocol reformat. Most errors originated from small differences in vendor-specific keywords across different models. Fig. 2. Open in a new tab Operational workflow of the online CT protocol updates on the secured network drive The protocols were formatted into a one-page-wide table that can be easily read and printed. Most formatting was completed using the XlsxWriter and PyWin32 modules. For ease of use by individuals not familiar with programming, a desktop application was created using the Tkinter library, which allowed users to upload a protocol export file, select the scanner make and model, and process the file. The consistently structured data for all scanners made it feasible to create interactive features within the site, including the interface for accessing technical protocols. Universal Clinical Protocol Template A one-page, universal template was created to serve as the starting point for all clinical protocol creation. The template was designed to include four sections, as shown in Fig. 4 : pre-scan guidance, authorship and scheduling, contrast, and scan instructions. The pre-scan guidance section of the template included fields for clinical indications, anatomy, patient positioning, and scan range. The authorship and scheduling section featured space for the author’s name and revision date, as well as checkboxes to indicate which scanners the protocol is available for. The contrast section included fields for contrast type, amount, timing, and injection rate. The rest of the template was dedicated to the scan instructions section, dedicated to scanning and reformation instructions. Each acquisition had its own subsection and included fields for respiration, technique reminders, additional instructions, a reconstruction table, and example images. The reconstruction table listed values for slice thickness, interval kernel, displayed field of view, and network destination. The image section was commonly used to show the recommended scan range, field of view, and patient positioning. Additional education images were often added to the bottom of the template when space was permitted. The lower left section of Fig. 2 shows the design diagram for clinical protocol handling. The initial transition to the new format using the templates was manually made by the technologists. The files were stored on a network drive for convenient and shared access in collaboration with the IT department. Write privileges were granted only to protocol editors to avoid unauthorized changes. Excel was used to create the template due to its structure and compatibility with Python. Fourteen Excel files were created corresponding to different anatomical sections (e.g. brain, neck, facial, etc.). Two sets of these files were created to keep adult and pediatric protocols separate. Fig. 4. Open in a new tab Sections and contents of the universal clinical protocol template Site Design, Updates, and Access As demonstrated in the lower right section of Fig. 2, the intranet site was created on the network drive instead of creating a public site for reasons of access control and collaborative workflow. With this implementation, the CT manager, technologists, and site designer were able to readily access the shared files with minimal coordination required. Both protocol and intranet site design files were quickly generated and uploaded onto the drive. The intranet site was created using HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Once the initial design and features were developed, a Python code updated the HTML of the site template(s) to include updated links to new protocols. This program ran daily using Windows Task Scheduler (Appendix C), streamlining the site updates on the network drive and eliminating the need for manual updates by staff while ensuring the latest protocols were being used by all users. The program ignored the protocols in development that were not ready to be uploaded if the word “stop” was included in the protocol name. Customized interfaces were created for clinical and technical protocols to suit the needs of the anticipated users. The typical users of clinical protocols are the CT technologists, along with the radiologists and schedulers, and the interface was designed to reflect their familiar navigation page on a CT scanner console. Clinical protocols were made available via a text-based sidebar menu categorized by anatomy. Protocols were displayed using HTML inline frame (Iframe) elements when the links were clicked. The main users of the technical protocols were the CT manager and physicists, so the interface was designed with protocol review in mind. A series of dropdown menus were available for the user to select the scanner, anatomy category, and protocol. An option was also available to view all protocols on each scanner at once. With the need for convenient access to the protocols during exam preparation, the initial access through an emailed link on personal workstations was not sufficient. Workstations used near the scanners were typically used to view the exam order in the RIS. Therefore, a link to the site was embedded within the RIS through a collaboration with the RIS team. The goal was to allow the users to toggle back and forth to view the order and protocols. The technical protocol interface was also incorporated into a protocol update request form to facilitate the protocol request, review, and approval process. The process was managed by the protocol review committee consisting of the radiologists, the chief physicist, and the CT manager. The page allowed the user to select a protocol and displayed the current technique with the primary reconstruction parameters. Below the current technique, it showed the corresponding editable cells for the user to enter the proposed changes. Results Technical Protocols The reformatting software significantly condensed the protocol export files into shorter, user-readable versions containing only information pertinent to image acquisitions mandated by protocol review. For example, the software reduced the length of the printed document from 380 to 54 pages on one of the scanners. As demonstrated in Fig. 5 A, the technical protocol page allowed users to choose any two protocols for comparison. It minimized the need to physically attend the scanner to retrieve the updated protocols. The software can also display all technical protocols at once from any scanner, as shown in Fig. 5 B. The technical reformat software was tested successfully with twelve scanner models from four major manufacturers (General Electric, Siemens, Canon, and Philips), from a 16-slice model to the wide-beam scanners. On average, it took 3 min to export the protocols from each scanner. The reformatting software had a run time of about 10 s per scanner, and the technical protocol site update had a run time of about 1.7 min total. In total, approximately 1 h was spent every quarter to populate the site with updated technical protocols. Fig. 5. Open in a new tab A Technical protocol page. Two protocols can be simultaneously referenced for protocol review. B All protocols from a scanner could be viewed at once in an alternate display. In this view, the user can toggle between scanners using the buttons at the bottom of the page Clinical Protocols Clinical protocols originally existed in a variety of formats, including Microsoft Word, Publisher, and PowerPoint documents. It took approximately 39 h to transition 130 existing clinical protocols from their old formats to the new format with necessary revisions. By the end of the transition, all protocols were converted to the new Excel format, shown in Fig. 6 . The total time was split between two technologists, each dedicated 1.5 h per week for three months. It previously took approximately 20 min for the creation, formatting, file conversion, and distribution of a new protocol. The time decreased to 5 min, due to the structured template, automated file conversion, and timely site publishing. The pre-formatted template ensured consistency of information. Grouping protocols by anatomy made it possible for the CT manager to toggle between the protocol being created and other existing protocols, ensuring consistency for similar exams. The scanner availability section on the template, such as the example shown in Fig. 6 , proved to be useful for schedulers to determine where they could schedule patients based on the exam ordered. Because the information was readily available, phone calls to find the available scanners for certain protocols were no longer necessary. In addition, the possibility of rescheduling patients due to protocol unavailability was reduced. Furthermore, nurses benefited from the online clinical protocols containing the updated intravenous contrast details for their preparation for exams. Fig. 6. Open in a new tab Clinical protocol template. It includes preparation instructions, basic technique, reconstruction parameters, and reference images. Schedulers can quickly view a scanner’s availability for a specified protocol, and nurses can find contrast information Site Design and Updates The typical run time for the software to convert the clinical protocols to PDF formats and update the site was 3 min. Windows Task Scheduler successfully ran the software daily. Significant changes were made to the original design of the site, inspired by user feedback from various groups, that included both visual and functional requests from CT operators and physicists. As shown in Fig. 7 A, the color palette was changed to gray and blue from black and red to make it visually less straining. An anatomy image-based menu resembling what is available on the CT scanner was added to make the protocol localization and selection more intuitive. A pop-up window listing all protocols available for the selected anatomy would appear when a body region was selected. A search bar feature was added to expedite finding a protocol using the text-based menu. Frequently used guides were pinned to the top of the sidebar to ease access to those documents. Figure 7 B shows the implementation of the site access inside the RIS system. The link to the protocol site was made available directly from the technologist’s work list page. On this page, the technologist can select and view the scan order and choose to reference the protocol if needed. Fig. 7. Open in a new tab A The design of the protocol home page with interactive graphics (left), protocol list for the selected anatomy (middle), and clinical protocol display (right). B The protocol link embedded into the RIS as shown in the highlighted box Protocol Standardization The implementation of the protocol site encouraged standardization across different scanners. The effect of the standardization of protocols can be seen in the monthly dose distributions across all scanners. Figure 8 shows the monthly distribution of CTDIvol for three major protocols from 2022 to 2025. While protocol changes make the biggest difference in the downward trend, our protocol management method keeps protocols consistent. This is demonstrated by the spread of the CTDIvol values each month over time. In Fig. 8 , the top of the boxplot reflects the 75th percentile, and the bottom of the boxplot represents the 25th percentile. A large difference between the 25th and 75th percentile values reflects variation in exam CTDIvol values, while a smaller difference reflects less variation. It can be seen that for all three protocols, the spread has decreased over time, in part due to the protocol review process using the protocol site. Fig. 8. Open in a new tab Monthly distributions of CTDIvol for major protocols of abdomen pelvis kidney without contrast ( A ), abdomen pelvis with contrast ( B ), and chest without contrast ( C ) Discussion We presented an in-house developed tool to organize and publish the technical and clinical CT protocols online with an engine for automated updates on a daily basis. The needs and benefits for wider protocol access by multidisciplinary teams were demonstrated. The important aspects of the work include the use of unified protocol templates, protocol synchronization to a centralized intranet for publishing, and user-friendly access in consideration of the various needs of different radiology staff members. Automating the site updates removed the dependency on the site developer to manually revise the HTML code. In comparison to the prior studies [ 3 , 4 ] or current commercial solutions, incompatibilities across vendors in commercial solutions were resolved through the universal reformatting of technical protocols. By normalizing vendor-specific parameters to generic terms, cross-vendor comparisons and a unified display format were made possible. The total effort to create and populate the wiki in Szczykutowicz et al. [ 5 ] was described as “two days of one full-time equivalent (FTE) IT professional’s time, including debugging and support,four days of one FTE of our lead CT technologist’s time; seven days of our CT physicist’s time; and two months of two FTE undergraduate time” [ 3 ]. While it is unclear what portion of the work was dedicated to populating the wiki with clinical information, our estimate of 39 h to transition the clinical protocols to the new template equated to about 5 days of one FTE. In the same study, the authors indicated that “the ongoing effort to maintain one’s protocols is likely to be the largest source of time and money spent to comply with accreditation requirements and maintain an organized and uniform set of protocols” [ 3 ]. Implementing automated daily updates greatly diminishes the burden to approximately 3 min. Technical protocols took approximately 1 h to export, reformat, and upload to the site on a quarterly basis. Our unified formats for clinical and technical protocols overcome the disjointed nature of commercial solutions from many vendors. In addition, we were able to include legacy scanners in our solution, which are not included in commercial solutions. Not only did the online clinical protocols facilitate collaboration among different personnel, but the labor-intensive and error-prone work from manual protocol update and synchronization was significantly reduced. The tool resulted in substantial benefits to the radiologists, technologists, schedulers, and nurses. In our practice, the site was adopted as a training resource for radiology residents and new technologists. Residents would refer to the site to make sure the correct exam was ordered. Newly hired technologists would familiarize themselves with protocols available at the institution, which may differ from those at their previous institutions. Experienced technologists also used the site to refresh their knowledge or find instructions for specialized protocols. As for the technical protocols, a unified format and timely updates are vital because medical physicists oftentimes need to refer to and compare the technical information for outlier analysis when the dose exceeds the internally defined thresholds or when the image quality is suboptimal. The technical protocols can be updated daily even if their export is currently done quarterly. Since technical protocol changes at our institution are continuous for dose reduction or quality improvement [ 9 ], we have started building a protocol change request interface using the unified technical protocol form. The interface can streamline the protocol change request and approval process. As shown in Fig. 9 , to submit a protocol change request, the CT quality manager collects the current scan parameters from multiple scanners and proposes new parameters to address the reason for the protocol change. The old and new parameters need to be included in a protocol request form. In the demonstrated process, multiple protocols can be selected, and changes can be easily reflected. Once the protocol request is approved by the committee, it will be sent to the automation engine for online publication. Furthermore, the successive protocol export can also serve as a cross-check on the protocol update accuracy. This implementation is currently a work in progress. Fig. 9. Open in a new tab An example of a protocol change template for online submission and review Additional site features are possible to advance towards protocol standardization. Protocol parameters are normalized in this work, but protocol names are not. This is an ongoing process at our institution, but the completion will be gradual. If an institution has already adopted RadLex protocol names, technical protocol parameters could be matched to dose statistics from the ACR DIR. This will not impact the proposed workflow, but having them aligned would allow users to make connections between the protocol exports and resources utilizing RadLex codes. Once the online protocol site was established, the effort required to maintain the site depended on two factors: frequency of protocol changes and the number of CT scanners. At our institution, 18 CT scanners at various locations and frequent protocol changes called for the need for the tool. The core team consisting of the developer in the physics team, the CT quality manager, and the chief physicist worked closely with other colleagues including the radiologists and the Information Technology Department to address the challenges. Basic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript are sufficient to build the basic functions of the site. Advanced features require a higher proficiency. For institutions with a significantly larger protocol library or more scanners, a relational database may serve as a robust storage method to store technical protocols and open opportunities for dynamic site elements. Creating an in-house solution is financially beneficial, as the required skill sets are typically already available within the IT and Radiology departments. Purchasing vendor software can be expensive, especially for smaller institutions or when an institution has scanners from multiple vendors. Additionally, more time and effort are required to piece the output from multiple vendors’ software together, versus customizing an internal solution. With the successful launch of the CT protocol site allowing for the availability and centralization of information, leadership fully supported the plan to expand the effort to other modalities, including magnetic resonance imaging, digital radiography, and fluoroscopy. Due to differences in modalities and the availability of exported information from various machines, changes are being made to the templates in these ongoing projects. However, the overall workflow and design of the site will remain the same due to the universal nature of the solution. Conclusion Synchronized online CT protocols provide essential information to multidisciplinary teams to perform consistent quality exams. Structured protocol templates and frequent updates are crucial for online protocol publication. Custom-designed interfaces help different users to better integrate the protocols into the practice. The solution provides a framework for novel protocol management for other imaging modalities where cross-functional teams can benefit from access to centralized protocols. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Ms. Lynne Roy, M.S., MBA and Mr. Greg Adamczak, M.S., MSHA for their leadership support to the project. The authors also would like to thank Drs. Alexander Scott, Nader Binesh, Xinhua Li, Chao Guo, and Miss Christina Lee for the helpful discussions. Appendix 1 Python libraries Table 1 , 2 and 3 . Table 1. Technical protocol reformatting: Library Version Purpose cryptography 3.4.7 Restrict access of the program to users with a key datetime 3.8.3 Find date for file name numpy 1.19.2 Perform mathematical calculations (e.g., dividing mAs by time to get mA) openpyxl 3.0.7 Format Excel table os 3.8.3 Manage and create file paths pandas 1.2.4 Manipulate data set Pillow 8.2.0 Manipulate images for GUI pywin32 227 Format Excel table re 3.8.3 Match protocol names tkinter 3.8.3 Construct GUI xml.etree.ElementTree 3.8.3 Parse XML files Open in a new tab Table 2. Clinical protocol Excel to PDF conversion: Library Version Purpose openpyxl 3.0.7 Find Excel workbook sheet names os 3.8.3 Manage and create file paths pywin32 227 Export Excel sheets as PDF files Open in a new tab Table 3. Site population: Library Version Purpose datetime 3.8.3 Find date for file name numpy 1.19.2 Find NaN values os 3.8.3 Manage and create file paths pandas 1.2.4 Manipulate data set shutil 3.8.3 Move files into archive folder string 3.8.3 Manipulate strings Open in a new tab Appendix 2 Vendor-specific keywords for technical protocols Table 4 Table 4. Vendor-specific keywords for technical protocols Generic term GE Canon Siemens Philips Scan/Recon type Type ScanModeName SeriesDescription N/A kV kV kV Voltage kV mA mA mA CustomMAs mA/mAs AEC IQ Ref NoiseIndex SXTargetSD SXTargetSliceThickness QualityRefMAs AECReferenceMAs DoseRight Index MinmA MinmA SXMinMA MinmA Absolute Min mAs MaxmA MinmA SXMaxMA MaxmA Absolute Max mAs Rot (s) Speed RotationTime RotTime Rotation Time Coll Rows Collimation Acq Collimation Pitch pitch/Speed Pitch PitchFactor Pitch SFOV SFOV CFOV SFOV Field of View CTDI CTDI CTDI CTDIw CTDIvol CTDI NV CTDI NV CTDI NV DoseNotificationValueCTDIvol Dose Notification Value CTDIvol DLP DLP DLP DLP DLP Thick Thick SliceThickness ReconSliceEffective SliceEffective Thickness Int Int SliceInterval ReconIncr Increment DFOV DFOV DFOV DFOV Field of View Kernel Filter FC Kernel Filter IR ASIR ReconProcess N/A iDose Level Open in a new tab Appendix 3 Windows task scheduler configuration Figure 10 Fig. 10. Open in a new tab Windows task scheduler configuration for triggers and actions Appendix 4 File structure Figure 11 Fig. 11. Open in a new tab File structure for the network drive Author Contribution Yifang Zhou: program supervision, methodology discussion and follow-up, and writing, reviewing, and final editing. Emi Eastman: methodology, software design and development, software implementation, and writing and editing. Barry D. Pressman: program leadership, methodology, and manuscript review. Vu Nguyen: website design, implementation, testing, and improvement. Lucien Zang: clinical protocol transition, testing, and improvement. Declarations Ethics Approval Not applicable. Consent to Participate Not applicable. Consent for Publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Footnotes Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements “Medical radiation exposure of patients in the United States”, NCRP Report 184 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, 2019 2. [2] Raman S, Mahesh M, Blasko RV, et al. CT Scan Parameters and Radiation Dose: Practical Advice for Radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol., 2013;10:840-846. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. [3] Szczykutowicz TP, Rubert N, Belden D, et al. A wiki-based solution to managing your institution’s imaging protocols. J Am Coll Radiol 2016; 13:822-4. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. [4] LaBella A, Zhang D. Protocol parameter extraction and centralization framework for comprehensive and in-depth CT protocol review and management. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024;25: e14316. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. ASRT. The practice standards for medical imaging and radiation therapy – computed tomography practice standards (effective June 19, 2011). Available from: https://www.asrt.org/main/standards-and-regulations/professional-practice/practice-standards-online 6. [6] Szczykutowicz TP, Rubert N, Belden D, et al. A wiki based CT protocol management system. Radiol Manage. 2015;37(6):25-29. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. ACR–AAPM TECHNICAL STANDARD FOR DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL PHYSICS PERFORMANCE MONITORING OF COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY (CT) EQUIPMENT. 2022. https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=131 8. CT Lexicon, Version 2.0, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2022. https://www.aapm.org/pubs/ctprotocols/documents/ctterminologylexicon.pdf 9. Eastman E, Pressman BD, Roy L, et al. A Holistic Approach to CT Protocol and Dose Management. Journal of the American College of Radiology, Volume 21, Issue 7, 1058 – 1066 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Articles from Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine are provided here courtesy of Springer ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (5.9 MB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• The RAD-HOME Project: a Pilot Study of Domiciliary Teleradiology#1075111
• Display performance and standards for primary digital pathology sign-out: Technical specifications, validation, and quality assurance.#275588
• Family-school-hospital collaboration model for urinary system tumor early screening education.#678234
• Evaluation of Clinical Endobronchial Ultrasound Skills Following Clinical Versus Simulation Training.#1057668
• Basic Bronchoscopy Competence Achieved During a One-Day Workshop for a Multidisciplinary Critical Care Team: A simulation-based study.#427887