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

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Radiological 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/objectives This 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. Methods A 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. Results Two 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.