Doctors' knowledge of the doses and risks of radiological investigations performed in the emergency department

Objectives:

To assess emergency doctors’ knowledge of radiation exposure doses and risks, as the increasing use of radiological investigations in emergency medicine practice is very concerning because of the associated risk of cancer.

Methods:

Doctors from different specialties and with different levels of training working in emergency departments of 8 hospitals in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, filled out a questionnaire. Participants estimated the radiation doses of different imaging modalities and answered questions regarding possible associated risks.

Results:

One hundred seventy-one doctors returned completed questionnaires. The overall correct dose estimation rate was 20.8%. Doses were more correctly estimated by consultants versus specialists and residents (p=0.007), and by emergency physicians versus doctors from other specialties (p=0.05). The correct answer rate was insignificantly higher among doctors with formal training on radiation protection (p=0.065). The overall correct answer rate was unsatisfactory for 4 questions assessing physicians’ knowledge of risks. Questions about the lifetime risk of cancer due to ionizing radiation were more correctly answered by consultants versus residents and specialists (p=0.05). Specialists were more knowledgeable about the risk of imaging on fetuses (p=0.05). Doctors with formal training answered 3 out of 4 questions more correctly than doctors without formal training, but no difference existed between them regarding imaging modalities, that they selected for pregnant patients (p=0.297).

Conclusion:

Doctors working in emergency departments had poor knowledge about radiation doses and risks. This issue warrants urgent attention.

Is the light at the end of the tunnel nigh? A review of ADPKD focusing on the burden of disease and tolvaptan as a new treatment

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) causes pathological cystic changes to the kidney and is characterized by numerous renal and systemic manifestations. ADPKD is the fourth most common renal disease requiring renal replacement therapy. In this report, we present a detailed review of ADPKD, with a particular focus on its major economic, psychological, and social burden in affected patients. Treatment of this disease has been based on prophylactic and supportive measures. However, in recent years, new drugs have emerged as promising agents that may retard the progression of ADPKD, such as tolvaptan. In this report, we provide an in-depth discussion of tolvaptan, which has shown an effect in decreasing annual total kidney volume growth and renal function decline, thus slowing disease progression. The mechanism of action, side effects, and available data on cost-effectiveness are discussed together with the results of the first clinical trials and the most recent trials with regard to its efficacy and safety. Tolvaptan has recently received approval and been granted marketing authorization in Japan, Canada, Korea, Switzerland, and Europe. A demand for widely accepted guidelines for its use has emerged since its approval. The currently available series of recommendations and guidelines as to when to start treatment with tolvaptan, as well as which patients should be treated, are also reviewed in this report. We lastly offer some considerations for future trials, and raise unanswered questions.

Assessment of junior doctors' admission notes: do they follow what they learn?

OBJECTIVES

To assess the completeness of history-taking and physical-examination notes of junior doctors at King Abdulaziz University Hospital per the approach they learned in medical school.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we reviewed 860 admission notes written by 269 junior doctors (interns and residents) in an academic tertiary-care medical centre in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, over a two-month period. Notes were evaluated for completeness using a checklist developed with reference to relevant medical textbooks. The checklist included 32 items related to history-taking and physical examination. Based on the review of the notes, checklist items were evaluated as complete, incomplete, not present, or not applicable according to set criteria. Data were analysed and summarised for information on the frequency and relative frequency of these types.

RESULTS

The history items varied in completeness. At the high end, asking about chief complaint and duration, associated symptoms, aggravating and relieving factors, and conducting systemic review were marked 'complete' in 74.2%, 81.7%, 80.4%, and 79.7% of notes, respectively. At the low end, asking about previous episodes, allergies, medications, and family history were complete in 5.3%, 1.9%, 4.8%, and 2.9% of notes, respectively. All physical examination items were poorly documented, especially breast examination, which was 'not present' in 95.8% of the notes.

CONCLUSIONS

Junior doctors' history and physical-examination notes are often incomplete and do not follow the approach taught in medical school. The reasons for this must be studied via focus-group discussions with junior doctors.