GP speciality trainees’ knowledge, attitude and practice regarding risks associated with common radiological investigations

Willoughby, Hannah; Ahmed, Haroon; Jenkinson, Rebecca; Edwards, Adrian

doi:10.1080/14739879.2013.11494200

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Expectations of harms were compared with authors' correct estimates in 26 studies (69 outcomes), with most participants (Ն50%) correctly estimating harm for only 9 outcomes (13%) (Figure 2). 13,38,54,56,57 Most participants underestimated harm for 20 outcomes (34%) and overestimated harm for 3 outcomes (5%) of the 58 outcomes for which underestimation and overestimation data were available.…”

Section: Expectations Of Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinicians’ Expectations of the Benefits and Harms of Treatments, Screening, and Tests

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inaccurate clinician expectations of the benefits and harms of interventions can profoundly influence decision making and may be contributing to increasing intervention overuse. OBJECTIVETo systematically review all studies that have quantitatively assessed clinicians' expectations of the benefits and/or harms of any treatment, test, or screening test.EVIDENCE REVIEW A comprehensive search strategy of 4 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO) from the start years to March 17-20, 2015, with no language or study type restriction, was performed. Searches were also conducted on cited references of the included studies, and experts and study authors were contacted. Two researchers independently evaluated methodologic quality and extracted participants' estimates of benefit and harms and authors' contemporaneous estimates.FINDINGS Of the 8166 records screened, 48 articles (13 011 clinicians) were eligible. Twenty studies focused on treatment, 20 on medical imaging, and 8 on screening. Of the 48 studies, 30 (67%) assessed only harm expectations, 9 (20%) evaluated only benefit expectations, and 6 (13%) assessed both benefit and harm expectations. Among the studies comparing benefit expectations with a correct answer (total of 28 outcomes), most participants provided correct estimation for only 3 outcomes (11%). Of the studies comparing expectations of harm with a correct answer (total of 69 outcomes), a majority of participants correctly estimated harm for 9 outcomes (13%). Where overestimation or underestimation data were provided, most participants overestimated benefit for 7 (32%) and underestimated benefit for 2 (9%) of the 22 outcomes, and underestimated harm for 20 (34%) and overestimated harm for 3 (5%) of the 58 outcomes.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Clinicians rarely had accurate expectations of benefits or harms, with inaccuracies in both directions. However, clinicians more often underestimated rather than overestimated harms and overestimated rather than underestimated benefits. Inaccurate perceptions about the benefits and harms of interventions are likely to result in suboptimal clinical management choices.

show abstract

Section: Expectations Of Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinicians’ Expectations of the Benefits and Harms of Treatments, Screening, and Tests

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given clinicians’ knowledge gaps regarding radiation exposure from imaging studies22–26 and the costs of these tests,27–30 displaying this information at clinician order entry may represent an important teaching opportunity regardless of the impact on clinician ordering. Clinicians often underestimate the radiation exposure associated with common imaging studies,25 31 32 and prior research studies suggest that clinicians are interested in learning more about radiation exposure from imaging studies and the costs of medical care 33 34. Previous studies have called for methods to deliver this critical clinical information to physicians, and this study demonstrates that displaying radiation exposure information at electronic order entry may be an acceptable strategy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Displaying radiation exposure and cost information at order entry for outpatient diagnostic imaging: a strategy to inform clinician ordering

Kruger

Chen

Rybkin³

et al. 2016

BMJ Qual Saf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The expert consensus is supported by recent research, suggesting that the process is undertaken inconsistently by referrers, if at all, and that "for a considerable number of referrers and practitioners, the provision of information stops at explaining the purpose of a medical imaging examination". 6 While referrers have expressed their support of the informed consent process (up to 97.8% of participants in one study 6 ), there is noteworthy variability in actually undertaking it, 29 and even less confidence in doing so. 6 This is a critical discontinuity in the current process.…”

Section: Initiating Consentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informed consent guidelines for ionising radiation examinations: A Delphi study

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

GP speciality trainees’ knowledge, attitude and practice regarding risks associated with common radiological investigations

Abstract: General practice specialty trainees underestimate the risk of common radiological procedures. Educational interventions are needed to address this issue, particularly in light of increasing open access to radiology in primary care.

Cited by 7 publications

References 19 publications

Clinicians’ Expectations of the Benefits and Harms of Treatments, Screening, and Tests

Clinicians’ Expectations of the Benefits and Harms of Treatments, Screening, and Tests

Displaying radiation exposure and cost information at order entry for outpatient diagnostic imaging: a strategy to inform clinician ordering

Informed consent guidelines for ionising radiation examinations: A Delphi study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About