Nuclear medicine software: nothing is perfect [editorial]

A discussion of clinical audits is sometimes perceived to be like watching paint dry. Hopefully this editorial will change some minds. Consider a hypothetical situation where a patient undergoes annual check-ups to monitor their condition using a nuclear medicine procedure. One year the procedure is performed at a different hospital, where it is found that that the result has fallen significantly. Does this really mean that their condition has deteriorated or could it be that the discrepancy is due to different methods used in the two hospitals? In reality several factors lead to discrepancies. One important factor leading to variation is the type of software used during processing. This variation is due to systematic difference in software implementation (different manufacturers, etc.) and software versions. This undesirable variation must be investigated and minimised by the nuclear medicine profession, in order to improve the quality of patient care. The role of audit in development of nuclear medicine care has been reported elsewhere [1,2]. 1. Jarritt PH, Perkins AC, Woods SD, British Nuclear Medicine Society. Audit of nuclear medicine scientific and technical standards. Nucl Med Commun. 2004;25:771-775. 2. Peters AM, Bomanji J, Costa DC, Ell PJ, Gordon I, Henderson BL, et al. Clinical audit in nuclear medicine. Nucl Med Commun. 2004;25:97-103.