Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39090574›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Awareness of radiation risks by medical students & referrers requesting radiological examinations in the North of Scotland: an audit.

Shannon Mellis, Yuxuan Zhang, Dympna McAteer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Shannon MellisMedical MBChB Graduate 2023, University of Aberdeen School of Medicine and Dentistry, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill Rd, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK. shannon.mellis3@nhs.scot.
Yuxuan ZhangST3 Clinical Radiology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill Health Campus, Foresterhill Rd, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZN, UK.
Dympna McAteerConsultant Radiologist, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill Health Campus, Foresterhill Rd, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZN, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRadiological imaging has played an important role in diagnostic medicine for over a century, though it is known to contribute to dermatological conditions, cataracts, and cancer. The associated risk of harm has led to the introduction of protective regulations around the world. Present-day NHS clinicians are increasingly requesting and relying on diagnostic imaging. Knowledge surrounding the radiation doses of common radiological investigations and the associated risks is imperative, and on a global level has been found to be inadequate. Consequently, there is a need for the formal inclusion of teaching within training programmes. AIMS/

objectivesThis prospective audit aims to establish the knowledge of radiation doses and risks of common radiological investigations of both medical students and referrers within four NHS Health Boards based in the North of Scotland. It also seeks to establish prior teaching and the preference for further educational interventions. AUDIT STANDARD: Referrers should have adequate knowledge of radiation doses and the risks associated with common radiological investigations. AUDIT TARGET: The standard should be achieved by 90% of referrers.

methodsA 19-question online survey was devised to include subjective and objective questions on ionising radiation awareness, education preference, and respondent demographics, based on RCR (Royal College of Radiologists) audit criteria and previous studies. Data collection was conducted between the 22/02/23 to the 22/03/2023 and the questionnaire was distributed to senior medical students and radiological referrers of different grades within NHS Grampian, NHS Highland, NHS Shetland, and NHS Orkney. A descriptive analysis of the data was undertaken using Microsoft Excel Version 16.71.

resultsTwo hundred eight questionnaires were completed. 22.11% (n = 46) of the sample population had received no prior teaching on the topic of ionising radiation. Over half of the respondents (51.92%, n = 108) rated the importance of radiation risks as either important or extremely important, with 69.71% (n = 145) of participants rating their perceived knowledge as limited or average. Most correctly identified that a CT scan (n = 203), PET-CT scan (n = 199) and a chest x-ray (n = 196) exposed patients to ionising radiation. A small proportion of the participants incorrectly thought that an MRI scan (n = 21) and an ultrasound scan (n = 2) involved ionising radiation. The results obtained failed to meet the RCR audit target, which states that 90% of doctors should be aware of common radiological doses. It was observed that only 17.79% (n = 37) of survey respondents scored over 50% in the knowledge assessment, with the median knowledge score of the whole cohort being 2.5 out of 9 (27.78%). Respondents who had prior teaching on the topic performed better those who had no prior teaching, with average scores of 3.19 (35.44%) and 2.04 (22.67%) respectively. Senior clinicians performed better when compared to junior clinicians and medical students. CONCLUSION & FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS: This audit found that the knowledge of radiation risks within the North of Scotland in the selected sample population was insufficient across all levels of the clinical team. Further, continuous education around the topic and future audit opportunities may help to optimise knowledge and training.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeRadiation DosageStudents, MedicalAdultFemaleHumansMaleMedical AuditProspective StudiesReferral and ConsultationScotlandSurveys and QuestionnairesIonising radiationMedical trainingNHS ScotlandRadiology teaching

Identifiers

PMID39090574
PMCPMC11295379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.