[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Doctor's knowledge of radiation exposue
I think that studies like this should be taken with a
grain of salt. This survey is based on asking a broad
spectrum of physicians about a subject they know
little about. It is like asking a group of high
school teachers basic questions in chemistry, e.g.,
what is meant by pH, what are the noble gases, etc.
I think it would be interesting to ask a physician
would he not prescript an x-ray exam because the dose
was too high. I would compare that number, which may
result in death to the patient, to the estimated 100
to 250 cancers from radiation exposure. That would
provide a good estimate of risks v. benefits.
--- Sandy Perle <sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET> wrote:
> With the recent discussion of patient dose, and
> Bill's proposal to
> revise Part 35 for patient notification, I found the
> following
> article, posted on the UK Health and Safety
> Executive website of
> interest. Other topics can be found in the Radiation
> Protection News
> at:
>
http://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/ionising/rpa/rpa24.htm
>
> DOCTOR’S KNOWLEDGE OF RADIATION EXPOSURE
>
> A recent study reported in the British Medical
> Journal (BMJ)
> concluded that doctors’ knowledge of radiation doses
> to patients in
> radiological investigations remains poor. In a study
> of 130 doctors
> at two hospitals in Oxford and South Wales, none of
> them knew the
> approximate dose of ionising radiation (IR) received
> by a patient
> during a chest X Ray (0.02mSv), or even the units of
> radiation
> measurement used, though ten were consultant
> radiologists.
>
> The doctors were asked to estimate doses of IR for
> other
> investigations relative to that for a chest X Ray
> (CXR) e.g. a plain
> abdominal X Ray exposes the patient to 75 times the
> dose in a CXR, a
> CT scan of the abdomen is equivalent to 400 CXRs
> whilst a lumbar
> spine X Ray is equivalent to 120 CXRs and so on.
> Five doctors (4%)
> gave no correct answers, six (5%) did not realise
> that ultrasound
> does not use IR and eleven (8%) did not know MRI
> does not involve IR.
> Overall, 97% of the answers were underestimates of
> the actual dose
> e.g. a patient undergoing an arteriogram of the leg
> would receive 400
> times the radiation of a CXR but the average mean
> answer was 26
> times.
>
> The paper points out that an estimated 100 to 250
> deaths occur each
> year from cancers directly related to medical
> exposure to IR.
>
> Reference: Shiralkar S, Rennie A et al. Doctors’
> knowledge of
> radiation exposure: questionnaire study. BMJ
> 2003;327:371.
>
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn"
Gore Vidal
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/