The radiographers' role in information giving prior to consent for computed tomography scans: A cross-sectional survey

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.

Disclosing the undisclosed: are radiographers and healthcare scientists required to communicate a provisional diagnosis when asked?

Patients need to be given the relevant information to be able to give informed consent, which might require the disclosure of a provisional diagnosis. Yet, there is no duty to give information to a patient if that patient is aware that this information exists but chooses not to request it. Diagnostic radiographers and healthcare scientists are often responsible for ensuring that patients have given informed consent for the investigations they undertake, but which were requested by other clinicians. Here we examine if they have a duty to disclose a patient's provisional diagnosis made by a referring clinician if the patient asks for this information as part of the informed consent process to a diagnostic investigation. We first consider aspects of UK law, professional guidance and salient ethical principles, emphasising that while professional codes of practice highlight the need to act in the patient's best interest, they do not require giving patients information they do not require for the examination or have not requested. We then propose that diagnostic radiographers and healthcare scientists placed in such a position use a 'minimally necessary disclosure' framework. This framework fulfils their commitment to their patient and the principle of veracity, while respecting the boundaries of their professional duties. The framework ensures that enough detail is given to the patient for them to be able to give informed consent, while shouldering the diagnostic professional from making a full disclosure, which is the duty of the referring clinician.

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.

Informed Consent in Dentomaxillofacial Radiology: A Cross- Sectional Study

Objective: This study assessed the opinions and attitudes of dentomaxillofacial (DMF) radiology physicians worldwide about informed consent in terms of oral radiology applications. Methods: DMF radiology physicians in various countries were invited to this study via e-mail. The participants answered their demographic information (gender, age, years of experience, title, institution, and country), and questions about informed consent. The Pearson chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used for statistical analysis Results: From 22 countries, 46 male (51.7%) and 43 female (48.3%) DMR radiology physicians completed the questionnaire. More than half of the participants (53.9%) were working in the university hospital, and the highest number of participants (32.6%) was from the European region. Most of the surveyors (70.8%) stated that consent is required in dental radiology. No statistically significant difference was found in the radiographic methods (intraoral, panoramic/extraoral, and cone-beam CT) applied in terms of obtaining consent (p > 0.05). While middle-aged physicians (30 –45 age) thought that patients should not be informed about the risk of radiation causing cancer, experienced participants (45 age and above) stated that information should be given about the cancer risk (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The results of this study showed that most of the DMF radiology physicians stated that they have responsibility for getting informed consent and only one-third of the participants inform patients about the risks of radiation.

Patients', radiographers' and radiography students' experiences of 360° virtual counselling environment for the coronary computed tomography angiography: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to describe patients', radiographers' and radiography students' experiences of the developed 360° virtual counselling environment (360°VCE) for the coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA).

METHODS

A descriptive qualitative approach was used. The participants were cCTA patients (n = 10), radiographers (n = 10) and radiography students (n = 10) who used the 360°VCE and visited or worked at a university hospital in Finland. The 360°VCE, resembling the authentic environments of a CT imaging unit, included digital counselling materials in text, image, animation and video formats. Data were gathered through thematic interviews individually to obtain an understanding of participants' perspectives and analyzed by inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Five main categories and 15 categories were identified. Identified benefits of the 360°VCE for patients included improvements in knowledge, spatial and environmental orientation, and senses of security and self-efficacy, with reductions in fear and nervousness. Patients found the counselling materials engaging, and that the 360° technology conveniently provided reassuring familiarity with the environment before their visit. Identified benefits for radiographers and radiography students included improvements in patients' mental preparedness, knowledge, spatial and environmental orientation, and reductions in patients' fear, which eased procedures and enhanced diagnostic success. The 360°VCE also provided useful information and familiarization with the cCTA unit for students during clinical practice and staff of referring units.  CONCLUSION: It seems that patients', radiographers' and radiography students' experiences of 360°VCE respond to patients' needs by improved knowledge and reduced fears. Thus, current counselling practices can be usefully complemented with spherical panoramic imaging technology and online information delivery.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results may be used to improve patient counselling and care, thereby optimizing the cCTA examination procedure and reducing fear. However, further research is needed to characterize experiences of the 360° VCE more comprehensively.

Communicating Radiation Risk to Patients: Experiences Among Radiographers in Norway

INTRODUCTION

Risk communication related to radiation has become more important during the last decade. Informing patients of benefits, risks, and alternative imaging methods is necessary to make informed decisions. The purpose of this study was to investigate radiographers' knowledge of radiation dose and risk, and their experiences with radiation risk communication.

METHODS

This study used a qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews with clinical radiographers. The participants were presented with three authentic cases describing situations where risk communication is necessary. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in four steps before the transcript interviews were coded and collected in meaningful themes. Participation was voluntary and participants signed an informed consent form.

RESULTS

Six radiographers from two hospitals took part in the study. The mean age was 34 years, their work experiences as radiographers varied from 3.5 to 30 years and with an equal number of women and men. The participants provided reflections on the cases, how they managed the patients' need for information, and how they dealt with concerned patients. They also reflected on the knowledge and skills needed to be confident with risk communication.

DISCUSSION

The participants were insecure of their knowledge of radiation dose and risk. They expressed difficulties with informing patients of radiation risk, without raising unnecessary concerns among the patients. When informing patients of the amount of radiation dose, they compared the dose in the examination to flights, background radiation, and the number of chest x-rays. The participants expressed challenges around radiation risk communication. All participants used the principle of justification in radiation risk communication.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that risk communication among radiographers is challenging, and the key challenge is the lack of knowledge of radiation doses and lack of experience in risk communication. There is a need for increased focus to and knowledge of radiation dose and risk, and radiation risk communication among radiographers working in clinical practice. This should be amplified in the education of radiographers, focusing on theoretical knowledge and skills such as reflection and critical thinking. This could cause radiographers to be confident and able to offer adequate information of doses and risks to the patients, so the patients can make an informed decision.

Radiation exposure awareness from patients undergoing nuclear medicine diagnostic 99mTc-MDP bone scans and 2-deoxy-2-(18F) fluoro-D-glucose PET/computed tomography scans

INTRODUCTION

Medical imaging is on average the largest source of artificial radiation exposure worldwide. This study seeks to understand patient's awareness of radiation exposure derived from nuclear medicine diagnostic scans and assess if current information provided by leaflets is adequate.

METHODS

Single-centre cross-sectional questionnaire study applied to bone scan and FDG PET/computed tomography patients, at a nuclear medicine and PET/computed tomography department over a 15-week period in 2018. Questionnaires on dose comparators were designed in collaboration with patients, public, and experts in radiation exposure. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis and quantitative data using SPSS (V. 24).

RESULTS

A total of 102 questionnaires were completed (bone scan = 50; FDG PET/computed tomography = 52). Across both groups, 33/102 (32.4%) patients reported having a reasonable understanding of nuclear medicine and 21/102 (20.6%) reported a reasonable knowledge of ionising radiations. When asked to compare the exposure dose of respective scans with common comparators 8/50 (16%) of bone scan patients and 11/52 (21.2%) FDG PET/computed tomography answered correctly. On leaflet information, 15/85 (17.6%) patients reported the leaflets do not provide enough information on radiation exposure and of these 10/15 (66.7%) commented the leaflets should incorporate more information on radiation exposure dose.

CONCLUSION

More observational and qualitative studies in collaboration with patients are warranted to evaluate patients' understanding and preferences in communication of radiation exposure from nuclear medicine imaging. This will ensure communication tools and guidelines developed to comply with ionising radiation (medical exposure) regulation 2017 are according to patients needs and preferences.

Barriers to not informing patients about radiation in connection with radiological examinations: Radiographers' opinion

INTRODUCTION

In some instances, little knowledge regarding radiological examinations is provided to patients. The purpose was to investigate whether radiographers inform patients about radiation, and if not, the reasons for it.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to radiographers working in the public sector in Northern Finland. Radiographers were asked whether they had informed patients about the radiation dose and risks during the last year. If information was not provided, the reasons for it were investigated using multiple-answer type multiple-choice questions with the option for free text responses. The results were compared between a University Hospital and other departments and between different lengths of work experience. Altogether 174/272 (64%) radiographers responded to the questionnaire; 50% were from the University Hospital and 50% from other departments.

RESULTS

Altogether 103/174 (59%) respondents did not inform patients about the radiation dose and 93/174 (53%) did not inform them about the associated risks. Regarding a passive approach to dose information, respondents thought that the referrer had already informed the patient (49/103, 48%), information was not needed (51/103, 50%), or it might cause unnecessary fear (47/103, 46%). Reasons for a passive approach to risk information were similar (66/93, 71%; 33/93, 36%; 47/93, 51%, respectively). Regarding the results, there were no differences between the institutions or work experience levels. According to the open question, some radiographers expected patients to ask questions before informing them. Lack of time was rarely mentioned as a reason.

CONCLUSION

The main reasons for inadequate information were ignorance regarding responsibilities, assumption that information is not needed, and concern about causing unnecessary fear.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Education, guidelines specifying responsibilities and contents for information, and easy-access digital educational material for public and professionals are needed.

Ionising radiation exposure from medical imaging - A review of Patient's (un) awareness

INTRODUCTION

Medical imaging is the main source of artificial radiation exposure. Evidence, however, suggests that patients are poorly informed about radiation exposure when attending diagnostic scans. This review provides an overview of published literature with a focus on nuclear medicine patients on the level of awareness of radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging.

METHODS

A review of available literature on awareness, knowledge and perception of ionising radiation in medical imaging was conducted. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were subjected to critical appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

140 articles identified and screened for eligibility, 24 critically assessed and 4 studies included in synthesis. All studies demonstrated that patients were generally lacking awareness about radiation exposure and highlighted a lack of communication between healthcare professionals and patients with respect to radiation exposure.

CONCLUSION

Studies demonstrate a need to better inform patients about their radiation exposure, and further studies focusing on nuclear medicine patients are particularly warranted.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Adequate and accurate information is crucial to ensure the principle of informed consent is present.

Barriers and pathways to informed consent for ionising radiation imaging examinations: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Informed consent for ionising radiation medical imaging examinations represents a recent change to medical imaging practice. This practice has not had a definitive and authoritative integration into clinical practice, and lack of direction has caused many health care professionals to be unsure of an appropriate consent methodology. Consent practices have been undertaken inconsistently and sometimes poorly. This research sought to investigate what barriers exist to meaningful informed consent, and what pathways are suggested to overcome these barriers. These views are then discussed in the context of practical health care consent practices.

METHODS

A semi-structured interview explored the views of radiographers and radiologists on the practice of disclosing the ionising radiation risk of a clinical medical imaging examination. Qualitative data was analysed using a nominal method of quantitative transformation. Responses were reviewed, and a set of definitive themes constructed. Participants considered the influences, logistics and barriers to the informed consent process. Participants were then asked what pathways might be developed that would improve the process.

RESULTS

Twenty-one (21) radiographer participants and nine (9) radiologists were interviewed. The barriers to consent identified issues of time constraints, lack of a unified message, and patient presentations. Pathways suggested included limiting the scope of the consent practice, sharing the consent responsibility, and formulation of definitive consent guidelines.

CONCLUSION

A unified, definitive series of guidelines for informed consent for ionising radiation examinations would alleviate many of the identified barriers. Having the consent process consistently begin with the referring doctor would facilitate more meaningful consent.