Doctors’ knowledge of patient radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging requested in the emergency department

View/ Open
Author(s)
Keijzers, Gerben
Britton, Charles
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2010
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Objective: To assess emergency department (ED) doctors' knowledge of radiation doses associated with diagnostic imaging and to describe their practice with regard to informing patients of risk. Design, participants and setting: Prospective, questionnaire-based observational study in May 2009 among all 110 doctors in the EDs of a 570-bed teaching hospital and a 200-bed district hospital. Main outcome measures: Percentage knowledge score; and frequency of discussing radiation risk with patients, based on responses to three scenarios rated on a visual analogue scale (VAS), where a score of 100 indicates doctors would ...
View more >Objective: To assess emergency department (ED) doctors' knowledge of radiation doses associated with diagnostic imaging and to describe their practice with regard to informing patients of risk. Design, participants and setting: Prospective, questionnaire-based observational study in May 2009 among all 110 doctors in the EDs of a 570-bed teaching hospital and a 200-bed district hospital. Main outcome measures: Percentage knowledge score; and frequency of discussing radiation risk with patients, based on responses to three scenarios rated on a visual analogue scale (VAS), where a score of 100 indicates doctors would always discuss it. Results: 96 doctors (87%) completed the questionnaire. The overall mean knowledge score was 40% (95% CI, 38%-43%). Senior doctors scored somewhat higher than junior doctors, but not significantly (42% v 39%; P = 0.75). Over three-quarters of doctors (78%) underestimated the lifetime risk of fatal cancer attributable to a single computed tomography scan of the abdomen. Most doctors (76%) reported never having had any formal training on risks to patients from radiation exposure. The frequency at which doctors would inform patients of the risk of radiation varied greatly depending on the clinical scenario (mean VAS scores, between 38 and 90). Conclusion: Emergency doctors in our sample had a varied knowledge of the risks from radiation exposure, but overall knowledge was poor. Staff should receive education, and the diagnostic imaging request process may need to include information on radiation doses and risks.
View less >
View more >Objective: To assess emergency department (ED) doctors' knowledge of radiation doses associated with diagnostic imaging and to describe their practice with regard to informing patients of risk. Design, participants and setting: Prospective, questionnaire-based observational study in May 2009 among all 110 doctors in the EDs of a 570-bed teaching hospital and a 200-bed district hospital. Main outcome measures: Percentage knowledge score; and frequency of discussing radiation risk with patients, based on responses to three scenarios rated on a visual analogue scale (VAS), where a score of 100 indicates doctors would always discuss it. Results: 96 doctors (87%) completed the questionnaire. The overall mean knowledge score was 40% (95% CI, 38%-43%). Senior doctors scored somewhat higher than junior doctors, but not significantly (42% v 39%; P = 0.75). Over three-quarters of doctors (78%) underestimated the lifetime risk of fatal cancer attributable to a single computed tomography scan of the abdomen. Most doctors (76%) reported never having had any formal training on risks to patients from radiation exposure. The frequency at which doctors would inform patients of the risk of radiation varied greatly depending on the clinical scenario (mean VAS scores, between 38 and 90). Conclusion: Emergency doctors in our sample had a varied knowledge of the risks from radiation exposure, but overall knowledge was poor. Staff should receive education, and the diagnostic imaging request process may need to include information on radiation doses and risks.
View less >
Journal Title
Medical Journal of Australia
Volume
183
Issue
8
Copyright Statement
© 2010 Australasian Medical Publishing Company. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.
Subject
Medical and Health Sciences not elsewhere classified
Medical and Health Sciences
Psychology and Cognitive Sciences