Docs in the dark on radiation risks in imaging, but a quick briefing lights the way

Hospital-based clinicians are not well-versed in the specifics of radiation exposure and risk to patients sent for imaging, but a brief education session may be all it takes to bring them up to speed.

Such was the case for 232 physicians from multiple departments at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (aka “AMC”) in Aurora, Colo., according to a study published online Nov. 1 in the Journal of the American College of Radiology.

Jason B. Hobbs, MD, and co-researchers tested their AMC colleagues on their knowledge of imaging-generated ionizing radiation twice: before and after attending a 15-minute presentation on the topic.

The clinicians who agreed to participate included advanced practice providers as well as faculty members, fellows and residents, and the departments represented included emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine and OB/GYN (as well as radiology).

The session offered general information but didn’t directly supply answers to questions on the test.

As a whole, the cohort scored low on the pre-presentation test.

Participants’ understanding of differences between imaging modalities was particularly poor; in fact, prior to the presentation, more than a quarter couldn’t correctly name the modalities that expose patients to ionizing radiation, the authors report.

Other questions, all posed in multiple-choice format, covered such ground as natural background radiation, the linear no-threshold model and up-to-date sources of decision guidance.

A bright spot in the pre-presentation testing: Most participants, 87%, correctly responded that, when deciding on an imaging exam, “answering the clinical question” is the most important consideration when deciding on an imaging exam. (The incorrect choices offered here were “minimizing radiation dose,” “reducing exam expense” and “avoiding ionizing radiation”)

Across the board, scores skyrocketed on the tests administered after the educational briefing, the authors show.

Not surprisingly, radiologists had the best pre-presentation scores—but even they improved their marks after sitting through the session.

“Efforts to educate ordering providers about radiation exposure and risk are needed to ensure that providers are appropriately weighing the risks and benefits of medical imaging and to ensure high-quality, patient-centered care,” Hobbs and co-authors comment. “[R]adiation safety training provided to all physicians likely represents a high-yield intervention in achieving evidence-based and patient-centered care.”

Dave Pearson

Dave P. has worked in journalism, marketing and public relations for more than 30 years, frequently concentrating on hospitals, healthcare technology and Catholic communications. He has also specialized in fundraising communications, ghostwriting for CEOs of local, national and global charities, nonprofits and foundations.

Around the web

The nuclear imaging isotope shortage of molybdenum-99 may be over now that the sidelined reactor is restarting. ASNC's president says PET and new SPECT technologies helped cardiac imaging labs better weather the storm.

CMS has more than doubled the CCTA payment rate from $175 to $357.13. The move, expected to have a significant impact on the utilization of cardiac CT, received immediate praise from imaging specialists.

The newly cleared offering, AutoChamber, was designed with opportunistic screening in mind. It can evaluate many different kinds of CT images, including those originally gathered to screen patients for lung cancer. 

Trimed Popup
Trimed Popup