[ RadSafe ] Medical Radiological Technician Oversight

[garyi at trinityphysics.com]

David,
I agree that training and certification are good things to have for technologists, but will 
that make a significant difference in patient dose?  I don't see much evidence to 
indicate that that is the case.  No technologist I know acts as if patient dose reduction is 
part of the imaging job, and I work in a state *with* credentialing requirements.  I think 
the other things you mentioned are more important in that regard.  Regulated dose 
limits, regular checks, and penalties for failure to comply are what really reduce patient 
dose.  If credentialed technologists were the key, then pediatric CT doses would not 
have caught everybody with their pants down.  Repeat analysis helps but its only done 
at JCAHO facilities.  Also, there is significant inconsistency in the regulations with 
respect to dose.  Consider the various dose limits (or lack thereof) for x-ray vs CT, 
fluoro, & mammography.

Back to Arthurs question:

> What mechanisims are in place to prevent Medical Radiological Techs from
> intentionally or unintentionally overexposing their patients

Arthur, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you are asking about a 
specific scenario.  Can you elaborate?  What sort of exam? X-ray, fluoro, CT, ....?

Thanks,
Gary Isenhower


On 23 Jun 2005 at 7:09, David Englehart <davee at med-phys.com> wrote:

> Arthur,
> 
> The best mechanism put into place to assure patients have their x-ray
> exam done properly is a thorough and comprehensive training program
> for the technologist, leading to certification through the ARRT.  Many
> states require technologists to be certified and licensed, some don't.
>  I live in a state that has no requirements for techs to be trained,
> certified and licensed.  Though, they do regulate beauticians,
> assuring no one in Mo. gets an unsafe hair cut.
>