JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Radiology is an important branch of healthcare as it allows one to diagnose and plan treatment correctly. The quality of the image and patient safety should be ensured by following standardized Quality Assurance (QA) schemes. In this study we will compare the QA guidelines as stipulated by the AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board), IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine) to determine their applicability and challenges encountered in their implementation in Indian environments. The main QA (Quality Assurance) parameters are examined in order to determine the gaps and constraints. On this basis, a combined QA (Quality Assurance) protocol is established to enhance compliance, equipment operation and patient safety.

Objective:

To compare national and international QA (Quality Assurance) protocols (AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board), AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine), IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)). Identify the gaps, variations, and limitations in the current QA (Quality Assurance) practices, develop a comprehensive standardized QA (Quality Assurance) protocol.

Methods:

This descriptive research will be done in DMIHER, Sawangi Meghe, India, to methodologically examine what is currently being practiced in terms of Quality Assurance (QA) measures of radiation departments against both national and international standards. A step-by-step methodology will be adopted. AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) will first review its procurement and QA (Quality Assurance) policies to know the present radiation safety practice and equipment performance standards in India. It will be preceded by a closer inspection of QA (Quality Assurance) systems and audit programs by IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine) with regards to the frequency of testing, the level of performance, and quality control measures. A comparative study will help to find differences, gaps, and limitations in AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) guidelines. Recommendations will be offered and a single QA (Quality Assurance) system will be worked out based on the findings.

Results:

The study has received ethical approval and will begin in November 2025. Data collection from selected radiation units will be completed by the end of 2025 through review of existing QA (Quality Assurance) protocols. Comparative analysis with AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board), IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), and AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine) standards will identify gaps with final analysis and recommendations expected by November 2026.

Conclusions:

The study will present a comparison of QA (Quality Assurance) protocols with AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board), IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), and AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine) standards, identifying gaps and inconsistencies in current practices. It will support the development of standardized QA (Quality Assurance) guidelines for routine use, improving regulatory compliance, enhancing radiation safety for patients and staff, and ensuring greater accuracy in diagnostic imaging.