Adverse events due to unnecessary radiation exposure in medical imaging reported in Finland

Abstract

Adverse events in radiology are quite rare, but they do occur. Radiation safety regulations and the law obligate organizations to report certain adverse events, harm and near misses, especially events related to patients' health and safety. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse incidents related to radiation safety issues reported in Finland. MethodsThe data were collected from incident reports documented by radiology personnel concerning notifications of abnormal events in medical imaging made to the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority between 2010 and 2017. During these eight years, 312 reports were submitted. Only events reported from radiology departments were included; nuclear medicine, radiotherapy and animal radiology cases were excluded. The final number of reports was 293 (94%). ResultsThe majority of the 293 approved reports were related to computed tomography (CT, 68.3%) and to X-ray examinations (27.6%). Altogether 82.9% of those irradiated were adults, most of whom were exposed to unnecessary radiation through CT (86.5%), 5.5% were children, and 4.4% pregnant women. The most common effective dose of unnecessary radiation was 1 mSv or less (89.7% of all examinations). The highest effective doses were reported in CT (from under 1 mSv-20 mSv and above). The reasons for the adverse events were incorrect identification (32%), incorrect procedure, site or side (30%); and human errors or errors of knowledge Data selection (20%). ConclusionAdverse events occurred especially in CT examinations. It is important to collect and analyse incident data, assess the harmful events, learn from them and aim to reduce adverse events.

Investigating errors in medical imaging: medical malpractice cases in Finland

“…In addition, health care personnel report patient injuries and adverse events to several authorities, including the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health (VALVIRA) and the Reporting System for Safety Incidents (HaiPro). If we compare the annual reports made by patients with those made to STUK by imaging staff (293 reports per year), we see that health professionals report adverse events three times more often than patients [ 29 ].…”

Radiation Protection among South African Diagnostic Radiographers—A Mixed Method Study

“…Guidelines, legislation, and regulations establish practice standards and standards for accountability but do not guarantee optimization and evolution (Pronovost & Hudson, 2012), as evidenced by studies in California, England, Khuzestan-Iran, Iran, Ivory Coast, Northern Nigeria, and Togo, where radiographers’ radiation protection practices were reported as poor (Okeji et al 2010; Reagan & Slechta, 2010; Kouamé et al 2012; Adambounou et al 2015; Awosan et al 2016; Karami et al 2016; Talab et al 2016; Hayre et al 2018). Noncompliant radiation protection practice was evidenced in the study by Tarkiainen et al (2020), where incidents of using the wrong protocols and imaging the wrong site and side of patients were reported. Exposure creep was observed in an ethnographic study when radiographers did not adjust exposure factors and selected exposure factors higher than necessary (Hayre, 2016).…”

Nano‐embedded medical devices and delivery systems in interventional radiology

“…Furthermore, adverse events (AE) related to IR procedures are rare but may still occur. Examples of AEs associated with IR procedures found in literature include improper device placement and related infections (Higgins & Herpy, 2021), incorrect procedures, and unnecessary radiation doses (Tarkiainen et al, 2020). These medical errors leading to AEs are preventable, and current research in IR is focused on the mitigation of known clinical risks and the development of new treatment strategies with minimal adverse effects.…”