ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Development and Implementation of a Professional Practices Evaluation during Radiopharmaceuticals Administration.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI screening of nuclear medicine safety breaches: patterns, causes, and opportunities for improved protocols: a systematic review.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Process-Related Incidents in Nuclear Medicine: A Four-Year Single-Center Retrospective Analysis to Support the Implementation of a Scenario-Based Radiopharmacy Training.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Securing both the patient and radiopharmaceuticals (RPs) circuit is an essential concern in nuclear medicine (NM). These circuits converge at the RP administration phase, a key step in patient management in NM. In a continuous quality improvement approach, we developed and implemented an evaluation of professional practices (EPPs) methodology focused on RPs injection to identify and correct deviations from good practices. The nuclear medicine technologists (NMTs) of a single center were evaluated. A specific audit grid was designed for this purpose, covering 4 main themes. Following the audit campaign, an improvement action plan was set up to address the non-conformities observed. Nine NMTs were audited on 4 RPs injections each. The mean total score was 93.36% with, on average, 7.01% and 3.00% of unmet and partially met criteria, respectively. In view of the non-compliance rates of hygiene and radiation protection items, theoretical reviews of these themes were included in the improvement action plan. As a part of the quality assurance system of a healthcare unit, EPPs are useful for identifying and correcting practice deviations at an early stage. They should be regularly repeated and combined with rigorous training and qualification of operators involved in RPs injection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.