Back to the list
Congress: ECR25
Poster Number: ESI-14841
Type: EuroSafe Imaging Poster
DOI: 10.26044/ecr2025/ESI-14841
Authorblock: R. W. Loose1, E. Vaño2, J. Ammon1, J. S. Andersson3, H. Brat4, B. Brkljačić5, K. Caikovska6, R. Corridori7, J. Damilakis8; 1Nürnberg/DE, 2Madrid/ES, 3Umeå/SE, 4Tournai/BE, 5Zagreb/HR, 6Riga/LV, 7Bruxelles/BE, 8Iraklion/GR
Disclosures:
Reinhard W.R. Loose: Nothing to disclose
Eliseo Vaño: Nothing to disclose
Josefin Ammon: Nothing to disclose
Jonas Seth Andersson: Nothing to disclose
Hugues Brat: Nothing to disclose
Boris Brkljačić: Nothing to disclose
Katrina Caikovska: Nothing to disclose
Riccardo Corridori: Nothing to disclose
John Damilakis: Nothing to disclose
Keywords: Radioprotection / Radiation dose, CT, PACS, RIS, Dosimetry, Physics, Radiation safety, Quality assurance
Results or findings

The responses from 26 different countries showed significant differences. 62% of the responses from DMS users came from Western Europe, 38% from Eastern Europe (Fig. 1). For IS facilities, 51% of the responses came from MPEs and 26% from radiologists. For Non Imaging Stars facilities (NIS), 16% of the responses came from MPEs and 72% from radiologists, showing that IS have higher availability and involvement of MPEs. DMS users reported examination frequencies ranging from 100,000 to over 300,000 per year, non-DMS users from 10,000 to 30,000 (Fig. 2). The main problems reported are modality interfaces, protocol names, clinical workflow integration and IT support (Fig. 3) [5]. The analysis of answers in this publication shows considerable heterogeneity about the parameters mentioned and a bias about the frequency of answers from DMS users and DMS-non-users.

GALLERY