Abstract
Purpose
We surveyed ordering physician attitudes, knowledge, and behavior with regard to computed
tomography (CT)-related radiation exposure at a large medical center.
Methods
Sixteen questions were sent via electronic survey to 350 physicians.
Results and conclusion
The ability to quickly rule in or rule out conditions effectively strongly influenced
the decision to order CT (85%–99%). Fear of litigation influenced CT ordering for
those with less experience [odds ratio (OR)=2.3, P<.05]. Residents and primary care physicians were less likely to discuss risks/benefits
of CT with patients (P≤.03) compared to those with >5 years of experience (OR=4.0, P=.04).
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical ImagingAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- CT dose: how to measure, how to reduce.Health Phys. 2008; 95: 508-517
- Strategies for reducing radiation dose in CT (PMC 2743386).Radiol Clin North Am. 2009; 47: 27-40
- ACR appropriateness criteria. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2010
- Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers.N Engl J Med. 2008; 359: 1207-1217
- Making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: do more preoperative CT scans mean fewer negative appendectomies? A 10-year study.Radiology. 2010; 254: 460-468
- Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective.Radiology. 2010; 256: 460-465
- Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure.N Engl J Med. 2007; 357: 2277-2284
- Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation, BEIR VII Phase 2. National Academies Press, Washington D.C.2006
- The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data.Radiology. 2009; 251: 13-22
- Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6: e34
- In defense of body CT.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 193: 28-39
- Paediatrician awareness of radiation dose and inherent risks in chest imaging studies—a questionnaire study.Eur J Radiol. 2010; 76: 288-293
- What physicians think about the need for informed consent for communicating the risk of cancer from low-dose radiation.Pediatr Radiol. 2009; 39: 917-925
- Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks.Radiology. 2004; 231: 393-398
- Peer assessment of pediatric surgeons for potential risks of radiation exposure from computed tomography scans.J Pediatr Surg. 2007; 42: 1157-1164
- Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment.JAMA. 2005; 293: 2609-2617
- Cancer risk from low-level radiation.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002; 179: 1137-1143
- Mortality and cancer incidence following occupational radiation exposure: third analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers.Br J Cancer. 2009; 100: 206-212
- Radiation dose and safety in cardiac computed tomography.Cardiol Clin. 2009; 27: 665-677
- Effect of computerized order entry with integrated decision support on the growth of outpatient procedure volumes: seven-year time series analysis.Radiology. 2009;
- Radiation dose reduction in CT: techniques and future perspective.Imaging Med. 2009; 1: 65-84
- Dose and image quality evaluation of a dedicated cone-beam CT system for high-contrast neurologic applications.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194: W193-201
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: February 13, 2012
Accepted:
January 4,
2012
Received in revised form:
November 18,
2011
Received:
June 14,
2011
Identification
Copyright
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
