Informed consent and communication of risk from radiological and nuclear medicine examinations: how to escape from a communication inferno

Elevated serum matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9) concentration predicts the presence of colorectal neoplasia in symptomatic patients

“…Clearly when there is commensurate benefit in the investigation, the excess risk may be partly compensated as in the staging investigation, which may follow a positive barium enema. Recent proposals suggest that quantification of the increased lifetime risk of developing a radiation-induced neoplasm should be imparted to patients prior to exposure as part of a consent process (Picano, 2004). However, it is clear that a non-invasive test, avoiding ionising radiation, would be desirable.…”

Improving health literacy: informed decision-making rather than informed consent for CT scans in children

“…This approach provides a framework for a meaningful discussion for informed decision-making and a truly "shared decision-making" model of patient care [11]. An example of communication of risk from radiologic examinations is provided by Picano [12]. He displays a graphical representation of cancer risk and radiation dose in multiples of dose from a chest radiograph for common radiologic procedures.…”

Patient Radiation Risk in Interventional Cardiology

“…The correct use of radiation protection quantities is useful for the radiation protection of the patient and the good communication between medical physicists, physicians and patients. This becomes more urgent nowadays because the use of radiation in medicine is expanding [4] and modern medicine demands shared decision making between physicians and patients [17]. Therefore, risks due to ionizing radiation have to be put into perspective with other risks (in-hospital complications, false positive or negative results, etc.)…”

“…Yet, publications on awareness of the physicians on radiation protection show that radiation risks are not well understood and assessed [11][12][13][14][15]. Moreover, it seems that the language of radiation protection is confusing for non-specialists, for instance the use of Sv as unit of both the equivalent organ dose and the effective dose [16,17]. Therefore, there is a need for a quantity that is more dedicated to the assessment of radiation risks, and comprehensive by non-specialists.…”