Radiographers' role in justification of medical imaging examinations.

INTRODUCTION: Justification is one of the fundamental principles in radiation protection and according to the ICRP, justification means that any decision that alters the radiation exposure situation should do more good than harm. The purpose of this study was to explore diagnostic radiographers' attitude towards their role in justification, and to assess the perceived need for justification discussions with peers and the ability to reject unjustified referrals during day, evening, and night shifts. METHODS: This study was conducted in Norway and Denmark. A questionnaire was developed in Norwegian and translated into Danish, and two experienced radiographers assessed content validity. A secure online data capture solution was used, and the questionnaire was distributed to radiographers working in clinical settings in March and April 2022 (n = 1215). RESULTS: A total of 202 radiographers were included in the study, 93 from Norway and 109 from Denmark, respectively. Seventy-nine per cent of the radiographers reported that they had a duty to assess justification and 86 % did so daily. Their role in justification assessment was reported as relatively important, where CT and MRI had significantly different results than the total respondents. Radiologists were designated as being most responsible in the assessment, closely followed by referring doctors and radiographers. The most important criterion for justification assessment was the referring doctor's clinical assessment. The need to confer was highest during daytime when there were also more opportunities to confer. CONCLUSION: The need to discuss justification of examinations is greater during daytime when access to radiologists is also high, while both access and need are low during night shifts. Further research is needed to explain the latter finding. Radiographers who engage in daily justification assessments, and perceive it as a duty, find justification important and report having sufficient knowledge to carry out these assessments.

What information did pregnant women want related to risks and benefits attending X-ray examinations?

BACKGROUND: In connection with X-ray examinations of pregnant patients, good communication of benefit and risk is important to provide adequate patient care. Pregnant women often become concerned about the foetus and are unsure of the risk of malformations and the development of cancer. Health professionals who are involved in imaging pregnant women require specif knowledge about risks and benefits so they can convey information without creating unnecessary fear. PURPOSE: This study identifies the information needs of pregnant women in connection with X-ray examinations and how they prefer to have the information communicated. METHOD: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of seven pregnant women aged 28-36 in weeks 16-33 of their pregnancy. The interviews were analysed using interpretive phenomenological analysis. RESULTS: The participants had expectations regarding the information provided about X-ray examinations during pregnancy. They needed concrete information on radiation doses, risks and any effects on the foetus. The risk was thought to be low, but several of the participants would still have been concerned when undergoing an X-ray examination. CONCLUSION: To provide adequate care of pregnant women in connection with X-ray examinations, healthcare professionals must have knowledge of pregnancy and radiation and have expertise in risk communication. This will prevent unnecessary concern in the pregnant woman, ensure that justified necessary examinations are carried out, and avoid adverse decisions such as termination of pregnancy based on erroneous grounds.

Communicating Radiation Risk to Patients: Experiences Among Radiographers in Norway.

INTRODUCTION: Risk communication related to radiation has become more important during the last decade. Informing patients of benefits, risks, and alternative imaging methods is necessary to make informed decisions. The purpose of this study was to investigate radiographers' knowledge of radiation dose and risk, and their experiences with radiation risk communication. METHODS: This study used a qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews with clinical radiographers. The participants were presented with three authentic cases describing situations where risk communication is necessary. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in four steps before the transcript interviews were coded and collected in meaningful themes. Participation was voluntary and participants signed an informed consent form. RESULTS: Six radiographers from two hospitals took part in the study. The mean age was 34 years, their work experiences as radiographers varied from 3.5 to 30 years and with an equal number of women and men. The participants provided reflections on the cases, how they managed the patients' need for information, and how they dealt with concerned patients. They also reflected on the knowledge and skills needed to be confident with risk communication. DISCUSSION: The participants were insecure of their knowledge of radiation dose and risk. They expressed difficulties with informing patients of radiation risk, without raising unnecessary concerns among the patients. When informing patients of the amount of radiation dose, they compared the dose in the examination to flights, background radiation, and the number of chest x-rays. The participants expressed challenges around radiation risk communication. All participants used the principle of justification in radiation risk communication. CONCLUSION: This study shows that risk communication among radiographers is challenging, and the key challenge is the lack of knowledge of radiation doses and lack of experience in risk communication. There is a need for increased focus to and knowledge of radiation dose and risk, and radiation risk communication among radiographers working in clinical practice. This should be amplified in the education of radiographers, focusing on theoretical knowledge and skills such as reflection and critical thinking. This could cause radiographers to be confident and able to offer adequate information of doses and risks to the patients, so the patients can make an informed decision.