Advertisement

La radiologia medica

, Volume 123, Issue 10, pp 788–798 | Cite as

Complete written/oral information about dose exposure in CT: is it really useful to guarantee the patients’ awareness about radiation risks?

  • Sergio Salerno
  • Cosimo Nardi
  • Chiara Tudisca
  • Domenica Matranga
  • Federica Vernuccio
  • Ambra Di Piazza
  • Valeria Selvi
  • Stefano Colagrande
RADIOBIOLOGY AND SAFETY
First Online:
  • 88 Downloads

Abstract

Aims and objectives

According to the European directive 2013/59/Euratom, starting from February 2018, the information relating to patient exposure will be part of computed tomography (CT) reports, but the impact of this information on patients has not been deeply evaluated. Aim of our study was to evaluate patients’ perception of radiation exposure related to routine CT and their understanding after communication of their dose exposure.

Materials and methods

A survey, investigating patient’s knowledge of radiation dose, was given to all adult patients (> 18 years) undergoing a CT examination both before and after CT scan. The first survey was the same for all patients. After CT scan, a second questionnaire was administered (after receiving the CT dose bill report and medical written and/or explanation about ionizing radiation risk). Results of the pre- and post-CT questionnaires responses were compared according to demographics characteristics and among the four post-CT groups.

Results

For some questions, statistically significant differences were found between the two centres. Seventy per cent of the patients answered that the presence of CT parameters in the report is considered useful. Even if not always statistically significant there was a slight increase in awareness of ionizing radiation risk comparing the pre- and post-CT surveys. The group that had both written and oral explanations had a better comprehension of CT dose bill (group III vs. I, p = 0.002).

Conclusion

The way of communication of ionizing radiation risks did not affect the results of the post-CT survey. Indeed, the interest in the topic did not rise in the post-CT survey in any of the group. Adequate information about ionizing radiation risks provided together with dose exposure information may be useful. However, there is not a standardized better way of communicating information on ionizing radiation risks due to CT.

Keywords

Radiation dose Dose bill Ionizing radiation risk Questionnaire Computed tomography 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Seibert J (2014) Initial Experience with California Law on Reporting Dose from CT. Radiological Society of North America 2014 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, 30 Nov–5 Dec, Chicago IL. http://www.rsna2014.rsna.org/program/details/?emID=12021243. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  2. 2.
    Zucker EJ, Larson DB, Newman B, Barth RA (2015) Radiologist compliance with California CT dose reporting requirements: a single-center review of pediatric chest CT. AJR 204:810–816CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    EC COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2013/59/EURATOM of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionizing radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/EuratomGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Atomic Energy Agency (2014) IAEA Safety Standards for protecting people and the environment. Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards. General Safety Requirements Part 3, No. GSR Part 3. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1578_web-57265295.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  5. 5.
    Park MY, Jung SE (2016) patient dose management: focus on practical actions. J Korean Med Sci 31(Suppl. 1):S45–S54CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nickoloff EL, Alderson PO (2001) Radiation exposures to patients from CT: reality, public perception, and policy. AJR 177:285–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Westra SJ (2014) The communication of the radiation risk from CT in relation to its clinical benefit in the era of personalized medicine: part 1: the radiation risk from CT. Pediatr Radiol 44(Suppl 3):515–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Westra SJ (2014) The communication of the radiation risk from CT in relation to its clinical benefit in the era of personalized medicine: part 2: benefits versus risk of CT. Pediatr Radiol 44(Suppl 3):525–533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2013) ESR statement on radiation protection: globalisation, personalised medicine and safety (the GPS approach). Insights Imaging 4:737–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248:254–263.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2481071451 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nardi C, Talamonti C, Pallotta S et al (2017) Head and neck effective dose and quantitative assessment of image quality: a study to compare cone beam CT and multislice spiral CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 46:20170030.  https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20170030 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salerno S, Marrale M, Geraci C et al (2016) Cumulative doses analysis in young trauma patients: a single-centre experience. Radiol Med 121:144–152.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-015-0584-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Colagrande S, Origgi D, Zatelli G, Giovagnoni A, Salerno S (2014) CT exposure in adult and paediatric patients: a review of the mechanisms of damage, relative dose and consequent possible risks. Radiol Med 119:803–810.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0393-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Granata C, Origgi D, Palorini F, Matranga D, Salerno S (2015) Radiation dose from multidetector CT studies in children: results from the first Italian nationwide survey. Pediatr Radiol 45(5):695–705.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3201-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palorini F, Origgi D, Granata C, Matranga D, Salerno S (2014) Adult exposures from MDCT including multiphase studies: first Italian nationwide survey. Eur Radiol 24(2):469–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ukkola L, Oikarinen H, Henner A, Honkanen H, Haapea M, Tervonen O (2016) Information about radiation dose and risks in connection with radiological examinations: what patients would like to know. Eur Radiol 26:436–443.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3838-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Picano E (2012) The information imperative: is it time for an informed consent process explaining the risks of medical radiation? Radiology 262:15–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salerno S, Marchese P, Magistrelli A et al (2015) Radiation risks knowledge in resident and fellow in paediatrics: a questionnaire survey. Ital J Pediatr 22(41):21.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-015-0130-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ria F, Bergantin A, Vai A et al (2017) Awareness of medical radiation exposure among patients: a patient survey as a first step for effective communication of ionizing radiation risks. Phys Med 43:57–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.10.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Neill S, Glynn D, Murphy KP et al (2017) An assessment of the quality of CT radiation dose information on the internet. J Am Coll Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.08.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Disposizioni urgenti in materia di prevenzione vaccinale, di malattie infettive e di controversie relative alla somministrazione di farmaci. (GU Serie Generale n.182 del 05-08-2017). http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2017/08/05/17A05515/sg. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  22. 22.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007) The 2007 Recommendations of the ICRP. Publication 103. Ann ICRP, vol 37, no 2–4Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bonn Call-for-Action (2013) Joint position statement by the IAEA and WHO. http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/medical_exposure/Bonn_call_action.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2017

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnology, Section of Radiological SciencesDIBIMED - University of PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2University of Florence - Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria CareggiFlorenceItaly
  3. 3.Department of Sciences for Health Promotion and Mother and Child Care “G. D’Alessandro”University of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options