Medical radiology/radiological imaging of the neonatal chest, V. Donoghue (Ed.), A.L. Baert, L.W. Brady. Springer-Verlag, 2002, pp. 197, €89.95, ISBN: 3-540-66703-2

2004 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 288
Author(s):  
Marcus Hörmann
1984 ◽  
Vol 23 (02) ◽  
pp. 87-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Flemming

SummaryIn the beginning of medical radiology, only the benefit of ionizing radiation was obvious, and radiation was handled and applied generously. After late effects had become known, the radiation exposure was reduced to doses following which no such effects were found. Thus, it was assumed that one could obtain an optimal medical benefit without inducing any hazard. Later, due to experimental findings, hypotheses arose (linear dose-effect response, no time factor) which led to the opinion that even low and lowest radiation doses were relevant for the induction of late effects. A radiation fear grew, which was unintentionally strengthened by radiation protection decrees: even for low doses a radiation risk could be calculated. Therefore, it was believed that there could still exist a radiation hazard, and the radiation benefit remained in question. If, however, all presently known facts are considered, one must conclude that large radiation doses are hazardous and low doses are inefficient, whereas lowest doses have a biopositive effect. Ionizing radiation, therefore, may cause both, hazard as well as benefit. Which of the two effects prevails is determined by the level of dose.


2018 ◽  
pp. 109-117
Author(s):  
S. Р. Morozov ◽  
A. V. Kvasyuk ◽  
N. N. Vetsheva ◽  
N. V. Ledikhova ◽  
D. N. Kureshova

Background.Question about the quality and format of postgraduate education of doctors raises increasingly in recent years. Development of professional standards and transition to a system of continuing professional education have allowed professional communities to raise issues of the quality of modern education but there is no clear evidence of the dependence of the level of education and the quality of medical care in the accessible literature. Experts of Research and Practical Center of Medical Radiology carried out the identification of dependence of post-graduate education length for radiologists and the quality of their work that can serve as a rationale for amending the system of doctors training.Patients and methods.The data on education and actual work of 85 radiologists of out-patient and in-patient units of medical organizations of the Moscow Healthcare Department have been analyzed. According to the results of the audit of diagnostic studies, carried out in the “Unified Radiological Information Service” system by the specialists of the Research and Practical Center of Medical Radiology, the final assessment of the work of each radiologist was formed, which reflects the presence or absence of diagnostic discrepancies.Results.Parameters of diagnostic errors depending on the age of doctors, the general length of service and the length of service as radiologist, the duration of postgraduate education in the clinical specialty and the specialty “radiology” have been compared.As a result of the analysis, it was found that the increase in the proportion of diagnostic differences is directly related to the increase in the age of the doctor and does not depend on either the length of service or the time of work in the specialty. Differences between the groups of physicians with the largest (professional retraining after clinical residency) and the smallest (clinical education + radiology) percentage of clinically significant discrepancies are statistically significant (p = 0.05, at the normative value of the Student's test score of 2.16).Conclusion.The inverse relationship between the duration of training of the radiologist in the specialty and the proportion of diagnostic errors, which can serve as a significant justification for making proposals for the exclusion of professional retraining within 576 hours for admission to professional activities of radiologists.


2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 200424
Author(s):  
Amy Joy Spies ◽  
Maryna Steyn ◽  
Daniel Nicholas Prince ◽  
Desiré Brits

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482199867
Author(s):  
Madison E. Morgan ◽  
Catherine T. Brown ◽  
Tawnya M. Vernon ◽  
Brian W. Gross ◽  
Daniel Wu ◽  
...  

Introduction Diagnostic radiology interpretive errors in trauma patients can lead to missed diagnoses, compromising patient care. Due to this, our level II trauma center implemented a reread protocol of all radiographic imaging within 24 hours on our highest trauma activation level (Code T). We sought to determine the efficacy of this reread protocol in identifying missed diagnoses in Code T patients. We hypothesized that a few, but clinically relevant errors, would be identified upon reread. Methods All radiographic study findings (initial read and reread) performed for Code T admissions from July 2015 to May 2016 were queried. The reviewed radiological imaging was given one of four designations: agree with interpretation, minor (non-life threatening) nonclinically relevant error(s)—addendum/correction required or clinically relevant error(s) (major [life threatening] and minor)—addendum/correction required, and trauma surgeon notified. The results were compiled, and the number of each type of error was calculated. Results Of the 752 radiological imaging studies reviewed on the 121 Code T patients during this period, 3 (0.40%) contained minor clinically relevant errors, 11 (1.46%) contained errors that were not clinically relevant, and 738 (98.1%) agreed with the original interpretation. The three clinically relevant errors included a right mandibular fracture found on X-ray and a temporal bone fracture that crossed the clivus and bilateral rib fractures found on computerized tomography. Discussion Clinically relevant errors, although minimal, were discovered during rereads for Code T patients. Although the clinical errors were significant, none affected patient outcomes. We propose that the implementation of reread protocols should be based upon institution-specific practices.


Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 331
Author(s):  
Daniele Giansanti ◽  
Ivano Rossi ◽  
Lisa Monoscalco

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) during the COVID-19 pandemic is there for all to see, and has undoubtedly mainly concerned the activities of digital radiology. Nevertheless, the strong perception in the research and clinical application environment is that AI in radiology is like a hammer in search of a nail. Notable developments and opportunities do not seem to be combined, now, in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a stable, effective, and concrete use in clinical routine; the use of AI often seems limited to use in research applications. This study considers the future perceived integration of AI with digital radiology after the COVID-19 pandemic and proposes a methodology that, by means of a wide interaction of the involved actors, allows a positioning exercise for acceptance evaluation using a general purpose electronic survey. The methodology was tested on a first category of professionals, the medical radiology technicians (MRT), and allowed to (i) collect their impressions on the issue in a structured way, and (ii) collect their suggestions and their comments in order to create a specific tool for this professional figure to be used in scientific societies. This study is useful for the stakeholders in the field, and yielded several noteworthy observations, among them (iii) the perception of great development in thoracic radiography and CT, but a loss of opportunity in integration with non-radiological technologies; (iv) the belief that it is appropriate to invest in training and infrastructure dedicated to AI; and (v) the widespread idea that AI can become a strong complementary tool to human activity. From a general point of view, the study is a clear invitation to face the last yard of AI in digital radiology, a last yard that depends a lot on the opinion and the ability to accept these technologies by the operators of digital radiology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document