Since they cannot always remain still or cooperate during computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, young children often need sedation during these scans. However, reducing the frequency of pediatric sedation offers a number of benefits, including increased patient safety, improved patient and family satisfaction, smoother patient flow, and decreased procedure-related costs. The authors detail the approaches in their program that allowed them to decrease the use of pediatric sedation and, thus, improve the quality of and satisfaction with the pediatric MR and CT services.
Mr. Khan
is a Research Assistant and a Medical Student,
Dr. Donnelly
is the Radiologist-in-Chief,
Dr. Koch
is an Associate Director of Radiology,
Ms. Curtwright
is the Senior Nursing Clinical Director,
Ms. Dickerson
is the Compliance and Education Coordinator,
Ms. Hardin
is an Application Specialist,
Ms. Hutchinson
is the Director of Finance, and
Mr. Gessner
is an Associate Vice President, Cincinnati Children's Hospital
Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH.
Obtaining high-quality images during a computed tomography (CT)
or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination requires patient
cooperation, particularly in not moving during image acquisition.
Many young children cannot cooperate with these requirements and
need sedation for a high-quality CT or MRI to be obtained. Reducing
the frequency of sedation for MRI and CT is important for multiple
reasons, including patient safety, improving patient and family
satisfaction, easing patient flow through the CT and MRI suites,
and cost considerations. Although radiology sedation programs have
excellent safety records and excellent success rates,
1-3
it is almost always safer to perform the required study without
sedation. Avoiding sedating a child for an imaging procedure may
save parents significant anxiety and thus improve the patient and
family experience. Avoiding sedation and the subsequent time for
recovery from sedation will significantly shorten the length of the
hospital visit, which is another favorable benefit. Reducing the
frequency with which sedation must be administered to patients
allows for improved and more efficient patient flow through the CT
and MRI suites. Finally, avoiding sedation decreases the overall
procedure-related expense.
In view of the multiple benefits in reducing the need for
sedation of children undergoing CT and MRI, our department launched
a process-improvement initiative in this area. The sedation
reduction program consisted of multiple components, including
hiring a certified child-life specialist, installing MRI video
goggles, adding a DVD player with a flat-screen monitor on a
multijointed arm in the CT room, installing a moving color
light-show device in CT, and instituting a "culture change,"
emphasizing the need to avoid sedation in children for CT and MRI
whenever possible. We assessed the incidence of requiring sedation
before and after the institution of this program.
Reducing the frequency of pediatric sedation
Components of the sedation reduction program for CT and MRI were
instituted sequentially during the course of a year within a large,
tertiary, freestanding children's hospital. At the time of the
study, the department operated 5 clinical MRI scanners and 2 CT
scanners.
Components of the sedation reduction program
Certified child-life specialist-
A certified child-life specialist was hired to prepare, coach,
distract, and support children in an attempt to increase the
likelihood that a child would be able to cooperate during the
acquisition of CT or MRI studies without sedation (Figure 1).
MRI video goggles-
MRI video goggles (MR Vision 2000, Resonance Technology Inc.,
Northridge, CA) (Figure 2) were used in each of our 5 clinical MRI
scanners. Children can wear the video goggles to watch and listen
to movies as a distraction during MRI acquisition.
MDCT scanners-
Both 4- and 16-detector CT machines were available. The rapid
acquisition time of these CT units results in a decreased need for
sedation.
4-6
Digital video disk (DVD) player with flat-screen monitor on
mobile arm-
Our institution designed and implemented a DVD player with a
movable screen (Figure 3). The movable arm has multiple joints,
which allows a child to watch a video regardless of whether they
are placed prone, supine, or head- or feet-first in the
scanner.
Color light-show device-
A color light-show device (Snoezelen, ROMPA Ltd., Chesterfield, UK)
was purchased that projects a moving color picture on the CT gantry
or room ceiling (Figure 4). The moving images often distract and
calm infants and young children, which may improve their ability to
cooperate with CT scanning.
Culture change-
The importance of avoiding sedation whenever possible was stressed
to the radiology faculty, nursing staff, and technologist staff. A
goal for reducing sedation was established and displayed publicly
on the Department of Radiology scorecard, with quarterly
updates.
In order to assess the utility of this program, records from all
CT and MRI examinations that were obtained in children younger than
7 years were reviewed. The frequency of sedation for the entire
group of children as well as for each specific age was determined.
For the year prior to initiating our program (July 2002 to June
2003), there were a total of 3858 CT examinations and 2366 MRI
examinations performed on children younger than 7 years. During the
first year that the program was fully implemented (July 2004 to
June 2005), a total of 3615 CT examinations and 2996 MRI
examinations were performed in children younger than 7 years.
Assessment of the sedation reduction program
A comparison of frequency of sedation between the 2 groups is
summarized for MRI in Table 1 and for CT in Table 2. Photographs
showing the different interventions are shown in Figures 1 through
5. For MRI examinations, there was a 34.6% decrease in the
frequency of sedation (
P
<0.001), from 80.8% prior to the program to 52.8% during the
program. For CT examinations, there was a 44.9% decrease in the
frequency of sedation (
P
<0.001) from 27.1% prior to the program to 14.9% during the
program.
All individual age groups younger than 7 years showed a
statistically significant decrease in the frequency of sedation
with the exception of children aged 6 to 7 years in the CT
comparison (Tables 1 and 2). The 6- to 7-year-old group in the CT
comparison did not show a statistically significant change (
P
= 0.077), even though the actual reduction was 50.4%, one of the
highest in this study. The reason for the lack of statistically
significant change in the older children undergoing CT is likely
caused by the very low frequency of the use of sedation in children
of this age prior to the program.
Survey of patient families
We also surveyed patient families about their experience in the
CT and MRI departments. Of those surveyed, approximately half of
the families who had a previous experience in either CT or MRI
believed that their experience after implementation of the sedation
frequency reduction program was better than their visit prior to
the program introduction. The majority of the remaining families
surveyed thought the experience was unchanged. It is the subjective
opinion of our radiology administration that the presence of the
child-life specialist has had a profound effect on patient and
family satisfaction. We received a greater number of unsolicited
complementary letters from patient families related to the presence
of the child-life specialist than about any other aspect of our
department.
Discussion
A program instituted to decrease the frequency of pediatric
sedation can have a positive effect on a CT and MRI service. In the
authors' program, there was a 34.6% reduction in the need for
sedation among children younger than 7 years undergoing MRI and a
44.9% reduction for those undergoing CT. Both effects were
statistically significant (
P
= 0.001).
The influence of the total program was assessed rather than the
contributions of individual components. In fact, the child-life
specialist was one of the key components of the program; other
components, such as the moving light show and DVD player, were
utilized as tools by the child-life specialist. The relative
contributions of individual program aspects, such as the child-life
specialist, DVD player with flat-screen monitor, moving light show,
and MRI video goggles cannot be ascertained from our experience. In
particular, the study does not allow us to gauge the influence of
the "culture change" created by the administration, with stress on
the importance of lowering the frequency of sedation and in
publicly displaying data on this parameter on the radiology
scorecard.
There is published literature documenting that many of the
components used in the authors' program have been previously
associated with a reduction in the frequency of sedation.
4-14
A change from single to multidetector CT and the use of MRI video
goggles has been shown to decrease the need for sedation in young
children.
4-7
The use of a certified child-life specialist in pediatric radiology
departments has been described, as has the use of techniques such
as guided imagery, to help children relax and to increase
cooperation during imaging studies.
8
This experience in our practice indicates that for CT and MRI,
both before and after implementation of this sedation reduction
program, the 1- to 2- and 2-to 3-year-olds had the highest
frequency of requiring sedation (Tables 1 and 2); yet, even in this
group, a statistically significant decrease in sedation occurred
although it was less than that seen in other age groups. Infants
can often be induced to sleep by feeding, providing warmth, and
swaddling in blankets. Children older than 3 years of age are, in
general, more apt to be able to cooperate. Some children who
require sedation may be less likely to benefit from the techniques
described, including some patients with behavioral problems, mental
retardation, developmental delay, movement disorders, and visual
impairments.
The purpose of our program was to decrease the use of pediatric
sedation and, thus, improve the quality of and satisfaction with
the pediatric MR and CT services at our own institution; and this
has been achieved. Development of similar programs, perhaps with
specific modifications for a given setting, may create even more
benefit. To succeed, however, there must be uniform support for the
effort among all members of the staff involved. Many potential
benefits will accrue to the hospital, the staff, and the patients
and their families if such a program is instituted.