No, we’re testing too much already. The radiation facts are true and should be part of a patient’s decision to proceed with a CT scan.
Related posts:
- CT scans and radiation exposure
- How much radiation am I getting with my X-ray, CT scan, or nuclear medicine test?
- The decision not to test is often the more difficult choice
- CT scans and radiation
- Radiation exposure and x-rays
- When patients receive too much radiation from CT scans by mistake
- Inconclusive genetic testing
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
Tough call but easy enough to discuss assuming you’re not doing dozens of different scans. Or do you leave it to the radiologist to discus who is usually nowhere near the scanner when it’s being done? We’ve all had patients with vague complaints and the only way to rule out a mass lesion is a CT. How can you reliably/accurately estimate the risk of cancer from the CT vs a missed diagnosis from vague symptoms? Each will be 1% or less so you’re estimate is inaccurate either way.
http://www.waittimes.blogspot.com
Ian, surely the patient has a right to know the odds and decide?
It is one thing when you plan to order a CT scan for symptoms when benefit greater than risk or at least comparable, although the patient still has a LEGAL right to know the risks. But there are plenty of CT scans ordered when risks outweight the benefit.
Especially, if you consider all the ads by radiology labs trying to convince symptomless (!) people to have a CT scan to rule out things they might have – e.g. cardiac imaging, or lung scans. Providing information about risks of CT scans can dissuade the patients from demanding CT scans. It could even answer a jury question “what harm it’d have been in ordering a CT scan?”.
Comments on this entry are closed.