A case is presented to show the importance of good governance of ultrasound medical imaging equipment. Issues relating to the large numbers and diverse range of users and equipment are identified. Based on experience gained over 25 years, supporting upwards of 1000 systems, discussions consider why and how the testing of ultrasound systems should be approached by both the medical physics expert and end user. The management of the process is presented in the context of professional guidance and monitoring organisations’ standards are considered to give a suggested best practice.
RussellStephen. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine Report 102. Quality Assurance of Ultrasound Imaging Systems, York, UK: IPEM, 2010.
2.
MårtenssonMOlssonMSegallB. High incidence of defective ultrasound transducers in use in routine clinical practice. Eur J Echocardiog2009; 10: 389–94.
3.
NarendranNDengLPysarRM. Performance characteristics of high-power-light-emitting diodes. Third International Conference on Solid State Lighting, Proceedings of SPIE2004; 5187: 267–75.
4.
IhalainenTSipiläOSavolainenS. MRI quality control: six imagers studied using eleven unified image quality parameters. Eur Radiol2004; 14: 1859–65.
5.
ItriJNJonesLPKimW. Developing an automated database for monitoring ultrasound and computed tomography-guided procedure complications and diagnostic yield. J Digit Imaging2013. 2013 Oct 22 [Epub ahead of print].
European Society of Radiology (ESR). Organisation and practice of radiological ultrasound in Europe: a survey by the ESR Working Group on Ultrasound. Insights Imaging2013; 4: 401–7.
International Electro-technical Commission. IEC60601 Part 1: Medical Electrical Equipment: General Requirements for Safety and Essential Performance. Geneva, Switzerland: IEC, 2005.
