[ RadSafe ] CT Disclosure

[howard long]

CT dose (av 1 rad for chest) is enough that I abandoned a hormesis study design in which controls would have had CT (and hormesis) while finding lung cancer.
 
However, patients should be informed of 
1, the dose, 
2, brief comment from both Gofman fearmongers and Luan-like hormesis promoters, and
3, the prescribing physician's reason for the CT.
 
Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
I was at a few meetings involving high CT doses. Part
of the problem is that there was never any reason to
change the machine settings between patients. If the
dose is too high with film imaging, the film will be
black. If the CT dose is too high, you just adjust
the contrast until you get a quality image. There was
no reason to change the settings as you had the image
you needed.

--- garyi at trinityphysics.com wrote:

> 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
> 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.
> > 

/