No abstract

• 95% of patients expect information on the dose and risks of radiation. • Symbols and verbal scale are preferred to indicate the dose. • Verbal and numerical scales are preferred to indicate fatal cancer risk. • Patients expect information on course, options and purpose of examination. • Prescriber, information letter and radiographer are popular sources of the overall information.

Similarities exist in the provision of clinical radiography education across Europe. Clinical placements are a core component of radiography education and are supported by experienced clinical practice supervisors. Mechanisms are in place for the selection, training and support of clinical practice supervisors. Professional societies should work collaboratively to establish guidelines for effective clinical placements.

No abstract

In the future there will be higher doses in dental imaging due to increasing use of CBCT and digital imaging. The staff performing dental imaging must have competence in dental imaging quality assurance issues found in this review. They also have to practice ethical radiation safety culture in clinical practice.

No abstract

Introduction: In some instances, little knowledge regarding radiological examinations is provided to patients. The purpose was to investigate whether radiographers inform patients about radiation, and if not, the reasons for it. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to radiographers working in the public sector in Northern Finland. Radiographers were asked whether they had informed patients about the radiation dose and risks during the last year. If information was not provided, the reasons for it were investigated using multiple-answer type multiple-choice questions with the option for free text responses. The results were compared between a University Hospital and other departments and between different lengths of work experience. Altogether 174/272 (64%) radiographers responded to the questionnaire; 50% were from the University Hospital and 50% from other departments. Results: Altogether 103/174 (59%) respondents did not inform patients about the radiation dose and 93/ 174 (53%) did not inform them about the associated risks. Regarding a passive approach to dose information, respondents thought that the referrer had already informed the patient (49/103, 48%), information was not needed (51/103, 50%), or it might cause unnecessary fear (47/103, 46%). Reasons for a passive approach to risk information were similar (66/93, 71%; 33/93, 36%; 47/93, 51%, respectively). Regarding the results, there were no differences between the institutions or work experience levels. According to the open question, some radiographers expected patients to ask questions before informing them. Lack of time was rarely mentioned as a reason. Conclusion: The main reasons for inadequate information were ignorance regarding responsibilities, assumption that information is not needed, and concern about causing unnecessary fear. Implications for practice: Education, guidelines specifying responsibilities and contents for information, and easy-access digital educational material for public and professionals are needed.

No abstract