Communicating Radiation Risk to Patients: Experiences Among Radiographers in Norway

Guidance for chest-CT in children and adults with cystic fibrosis: A European perspective

The European Cystic Fibrosis Society-Clinical Trials Network (ECFS-CTN) herein proposes guidance for the use of chest CT-scans for the regular monitoring of lung disease in CF. Statements were completed in a 3-step process: the questions were identified via an anonymous online survey, followed by a comprehensive literature search, and a final Delphi process. The guidance recommends the use of ultra-low dose CT scans (effective radiation dose, 0.08 mSv; equivalent to 2 to 4 chest X-rays), tracking of patients' cumulative radiation and effective communication strategies using "de-medicalized" information for shared decision making. Chest CT scans (with lung volume monitoring) are not recommended systematically in both children and adults. Ultimate responsibility for justifying a chest CT scan lies with the individual professionals directly involved, the final decision being influenced by indications, costs, expertise, available material, resources and/or the patient's values, as well as possible impact on treatment modalities.

Exploring communication gaps and parental needs during paediatric CT scan risk-benefit dialogue in resource-constrained facilities

BACKGROUND

Clear communication during informed consent is crucial in paediatric computed tomography (CT) procedures, particularly in resource-constrained settings. CT offers valuable diagnostic information but carries potential radiation risks, especially for paediatric patients. Parents play a critical role in decision-making, necessitating thorough risk-benefit discussions. This study aimed to explore parental experiences regarding risk-benefit communication during their children's CT scans in under-resourced healthcare facilities.

METHODS

A qualitative approach with a descriptive design was employed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 purposefully selected and consenting parents accompanying paediatric patients for CT scans at two public hospitals. Data were analysed using Tesch's eight-step method and ATLAS.ti software.

RESULTS

Participants were parents of children aged 0-10 years (8 males, 5 females), with 11 making their first visit to the CT department. Three main themes emerged: (1) Compromised consenting process, characterised by inadequate explanation of consent and limited risk-benefit communication; (2) Procedural information deficiency, including minimal communication about the procedure and lack of information on examination results; and (3) Preference for improved communication, with parents expressing a desire for comprehensive information and varied opinions on who should disseminate this information. Parents reported feeling uninformed, anxious, and unable to make well-informed decisions due to communication gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant improvements are needed in risk-benefit communication during paediatric CT scans. Healthcare providers should use simplified language, visual aids, and patient-centred discussions to enhance understanding and reduce parental anxiety. Radiographers should allocate sufficient time for discussions, involve referring physicians when necessary, and document the informed consent process thoroughly. Addressing these issues can improve patient experiences and contribute to positive health outcomes in resource-constrained settings.

Radiographers' role in justification of medical imaging examinations

INTRODUCTION

Justification is one of the fundamental principles in radiation protection and according to the ICRP, justification means that any decision that alters the radiation exposure situation should do more good than harm. The purpose of this study was to explore diagnostic radiographers' attitude towards their role in justification, and to assess the perceived need for justification discussions with peers and the ability to reject unjustified referrals during day, evening, and night shifts.

METHODS

This study was conducted in Norway and Denmark. A questionnaire was developed in Norwegian and translated into Danish, and two experienced radiographers assessed content validity. A secure online data capture solution was used, and the questionnaire was distributed to radiographers working in clinical settings in March and April 2022 (n = 1215).

RESULTS

A total of 202 radiographers were included in the study, 93 from Norway and 109 from Denmark, respectively. Seventy-nine per cent of the radiographers reported that they had a duty to assess justification and 86 % did so daily. Their role in justification assessment was reported as relatively important, where CT and MRI had significantly different results than the total respondents. Radiologists were designated as being most responsible in the assessment, closely followed by referring doctors and radiographers. The most important criterion for justification assessment was the referring doctor's clinical assessment. The need to confer was highest during daytime when there were also more opportunities to confer.

CONCLUSION

The need to discuss justification of examinations is greater during daytime when access to radiologists is also high, while both access and need are low during night shifts. Further research is needed to explain the latter finding. Radiographers who engage in daily justification assessments, and perceive it as a duty, find justification important and report having sufficient knowledge to carry out these assessments.

The radiographers' opinion on assessing radiological referrals

INTRODUCTION

Radiographers have a fundamental duty to assess radiological referrals and ensure imaging is justified. This study constitutes the third part of a broader research on radiographers' assessment of referrals. The study examines the opinions of radiographers on the matter, as articulated in their own words.

METHODS

A questionnaire with closed and open-ended questions was designed, validated, and distributed to radiographers following activities organised by the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT). This third part covers the participants' free-text comments about radiographers' assessment of referrals. Qualitative, inductive content analysis was used to report findings involving three phases: 1) Preparation, 2) Organisation where two authors individually coded and categorised the emerged themes, and 3) Reporting, were the authors compared, reviewed, and defined the meanings of the themes and sub-themes.

RESULTS

Five main themes Opportunity, Competency, Work environment, Role perception and Significance emerged, shaped as descriptive, normative, and prospective statements. In opportunities the respondents (descriptively) depicted the importance of their position and challenges faced, including lack of adequate clinical information in referrals. Competencies concerned whether they have the required knowledge and skills for the task. In work environment the respondents viewed themselves as partners and collaborators with radiologists and referrers but expressed that unclear regulations could challenge their task. In role perception, the respondents expressed (normatively) that assessing referrals is vital for professional self-esteem and radiographers' responsibility. Significance covers the importance of assessing referrals for different aspects relating to quality of services.

CONCLUSION

Radiographers expressed high engagement towards tasks of assessing referrals. To support radiographers in this role, it is crucial to establish clear regulations, better organisation of departmental processes and provide adequate training.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Radiology departments should actively explore strategies of incorporating the radiographers' resources and core position in the process of assessing referrals, in a consistent and effective manner.

An assessment of radiation safety practices for transgender and gender non-binary patients in Irish radiology departments

INTRODUCTION

Studies indicate there may be inadequate care given to transgender and non-binary (TGNB) patients in healthcare environments, with radiology departments not being equipped to cater for this group. There is currently a deficit in research concerning the use of radiation safety measures for TGNB patients. The purpose of this research was to examine opinions of Irish Radiation Safety Experts (RSE) on current status of radiation safety protocols and techniques in place for TGNB patients and consider any changes necessary.

METHODOLOGY

Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted with RSEs from eight Irish hospitals, including five radiation protection officers (RPO) and five medical physicists. Question included: current radiation safety protocols for TGNB patients, potential issues and challenges with current practice, and recommendations of new measures. Coding was used to facilitate content analysis for interpretation of findings.

RESULTS

No reference to TGNB patients in local policies or guidelines was evident. Interviews established key radiation safety risks including inadvertent exposure of the foetus and insensitive patient care. Prominent categories identified included additional education, gender identification at patient registration and consideration of current policies and guidelines. The extent to which RSEs promoted the implementation of further measures to radiology departments varied.

CONCLUSIONS

A clear lack of guidance and instruction for radiation safety for TGNB patients is evident. Whilst there are few TGNB patients in Irish hospitals, participants believed that inclusive changes should be made concurrent with Ireland's evolving culture and in the interest of equality of patient safety.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Inclusive changes should be made to radiology departments concurrent with Ireland's evolving culture. However, barriers to implementing such measures include a lack of available resources, investment, and instruction from authoritative bodies.

[Explaining radiation dose exposure : The role of the banana equivalent dose compared to the effective dose in patient communication]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Communicating the amount and effects of ionizing radiation to patients prior to an examination using x‑rays is associated with challenges: first, calculating the expected dose prior to the examination and, second, quantifying and illustrating cancer risks. Analogies, such as comparing radiation exposure to accident risks, have limitations and may evoke unease. This study explores and compares two new approaches to discuss radiation exposure from common clinical examinations with patients: effective dose and exposure based on radioactive potassium-40 intake from the ingestion of bananas, the banana equivalent dose (BED).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The effective doses of the diagnostic reference levels (DRL) for computed tomography (CT) and X-ray examinations in adults were calculated using mean conversion factors for specific anatomic body regions. For the BED calculation of the diagnostic reference levels, the radiation dose from a conventional banana ingested over 50 years per becquerel was calculated. The outcomes were juxtaposed against an equivalent number of bananas and its respective radiation doses.

RESULTS

The calculated doses, namely effective dose and BED, of the German DRL can serve as a reliable metric to discuss radiation exposure from medical imaging with patients prior to an examination.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to calculate the effective doses of the current DRL and to compare these with the pseudoscientific unit BED. While the BED serves as an interesting illustration to metaphorize radiation exposure, it is recommended to use the calculated effective dose of the DRL as the basis for educational consultations with patients.

Radiation risk-benefit communication during paediatric CT imaging: Experiences of radiographers at two public hospitals

INTRODUCTION

Radiation dose knowledge and effective communication skills are essential for both radiographers and radiologists to be able to appropriately fulfil their legal responsibilities to justify each medical exposure. Furthermore, they enable the optimisation of imaging protocols and techniques according to the child's characteristics and underlying clinical conditions. Previous studies have shown that radiographers do not provide paediatric patients and their parents/guardians with adequate information about doses and risks before a procedure. However, they have a legal responsibility to explain the radiation risk associated with performing the procedure as well as the associated risk of not performing the same procedure. There are several obstacles to describing ionizing radiation risk, including the ionizing radiation language that is not readily understood by non-imaging personnel. This study aimed to explore and describe the radiographers' experiences of radiation risk-benefit communication during paediatric CT imaging at two public hospitals. This is important to understand the effectiveness of the communication process and institute corrective action where shortcomings are evident.

METHODS

A qualitative, exploratory, descriptive research design was applied. The sample consisted of 12 purposively selected radiographers who were trained and working in the CT imaging department. Data were collected using face-to-face individual interviews. Tesch's 8 steps were used to analyse the data collected and generate themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Two themes emerged from the data collected: (1)Positive experiences with two sub-themes (job satisfaction and mutual benefit) and (2) negative experiences with three sub-themes (.professional deprecation, ineffectual outcomes and communication impediments).

CONCLUSION

Positive experiences boosted radiographers' confidence and enhanced their participation in radiation risk-benefit communication with paediatric patients' parents and guardians while negative experiences hindered patient-centred care in the process of risk-benefit communication.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Continuous education of radiographers and doctors on radiation risk-benefit communication before paediatric CT procedures is recommended, in line with their scope of practice, to improve patient-centred care.

A Single-Institution Experience in the Use of Chest Radiographs for Hospitalized Children Labeled as Asthma Exacerbation

Background: Risks of diagnostic radiation have become more notable lately, particularly in young children with chronic medical conditions. This study reports on the cumulative radiation from chest radiographs in children with asthma. Its main purpose was to review our current practice and suggest minimizing the use of chest radiographs. Methods: The study was retrospective and conducted at a pediatric tertiary center. Eligibility criteria included children 2-15 y, admitted between January 2017 and December 2018 for asthma management. Results: Of the 643 children admitted as "asthma exacerbation," 243 [40% females; age (mean ± SD) 5.4±3.3 y] met the study criteria for inclusion. Ninety-two (38%) children had a temperature of 38.8±0.7°C on the day of admission. Antibiotics were prescribed for 148 (61%) children, mainly for presumed pneumonia. Chest radiographs were requested for 214 (88%) children, mainly on the day of admission. Only 38 (18%) chest radiographs showed focal/multifocal pneumonia justifying antibiotic use. Significant predictors for requesting chest radiographs were antibiotic use for presumed pneumonia, lower oxygen saturation at presentation, and a requested blood culture. The rate of chest radiographs per year was negatively related to the child's age; the younger the child the higher the rate (model coefficient -0.259, P < 0.001). For children < 5 y, the rate of chest radiographs was 1.39 ± 1.21/y and radiation dose 0.028 ± 0.025 mSv/y. The corresponding rates for children ≥5 y were 0.78 ± 0.72/y and 0.008 ± 0.007 mSv/y, respectively (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Chest radiographs were commonly requested for children with asthma, especially younger children. Prospective studies are necessary to measure the impact of this practice on the children's health.