Home Radiation Safety and Medical Education
Post
Cancel

Radiation Safety and Medical Education

Posted Mar 31, 2012 Updated Apr 10, 2023
By Nicholas A. Koontz MD , Richard B. Gunderman MD PhD
18 min read

Rationale and Objectives

This study assesses the effect on medical student understanding of a new radiobiology and radiation safety module in a fourth-year radiology clerkship.

Materials and Methods

A dedicated radiobiology and radiation safety module was incorporated into the fourth-year medical school radiology clerkship at our institution. Student understanding of the material was assessed via pretest and posttest. Statistical analysis was performed to assess significance of changes in student performance. In addition, we surveyed student perceptions of the importance of this material in medical education and practice.

Results

Monthly pretest mean scores ranged from 47.8% to 55.6%, with an average monthly pretest score of 50.3%. Monthly posttest mean scores ranged from 77.3% to 91.2%, with an average monthly posttest score of 83.9%. The improvement in exam scores after the educational intervention was statistically significant (all P < .01).

Conclusion

The introduction of a new educational module can significantly improve medical student understanding of radiobiology and radiation safety.

“Primum non noncere” –Anonymous

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Materials and methods

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Learning Assessment

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Survey Instrument

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Surveyed Fourth-year Medical Students

n Age, Mean Years (SD) Basic Science Undergrad Major Nonbasic Science Undergrad Major Intended Radiology or Radiation Oncology Residency Other Intended Residency Prior Graduate School Men 130 26.3 (2.1) 102 28 13 117 20 Women 106 26.3 (1.9) 80 26 3 103 13 Unspecified 2 31.5 (9.2) 2 0 0 2 0 All 238 26.3 (2.1) 184 54 16 222 33

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Statistical Analysis

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Results

Pre- and Posttest

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Table 2

Analysis of Radiation Safety Educational Intervention

Month_n_ Pretest Mean Score Pretest SD Posttest Mean Score Posttest SD_P_ 1 25 0.504 0.172 0.868 0.135 <.01 2 23 0.478 0.178 0.883 0.137 <.01 3 19 0.532 0.116 0.847 0.122 <.01 4 28 0.496 0.107 0.839 0.129 <.01 5 28 0.454 0.120 0.779 0.134 <.01 6 22 0.513 0.132 0.773 0.178 <.01 7 17 0.494 0.066 0.912 0.078 <.01 8 27 0.556 0.122 0.841 0.128 <.01 9 16 0.481 0.098 0.819 0.138 <.01 10 26 0.523 0.091 0.850 0.156 <.01 Total 231 0.503 0.127 0.839 0.140 <.01

SD, standard deviation.

Figure 1, Radiation safety pretest versus posttest mean scores.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Survey

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 2, Importance of considering radiation exposure when ordering an imaging exam.

Figure 3, Personal consideration of radiation dose when ordering an exam.

Figure 4, Anticipated change in ordering habits after a radiation safety course.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Discussion

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Acknowledgments

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Appendix 1

Radiation safety syllabus

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

- vi.
  [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)


  - 1.
    [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)

  - 2.
    [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)

  - 3.
    [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)

  - 4.
    [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

- vii.
  [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)


  - 1.
    [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)

  - 2.
    [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)

  - 3.
    [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

- viii.
  [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)


  - 1.
    [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)

  - 2.
    [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)

  - 3.
    [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

1
2

- iii.
  [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

1
2

- vi.
  [Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<](https://clinicalpub.com/app)

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Appendix 2

Sample multiple-choice questions from pre- and posttest question bank

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Appendix 3

Medical student pre-clerkship radiation safety survey instrument

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

References

  • 1. Smith C.M.: Origin and uses of primum non nocere —above all, do no harm!. J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 45: pp. 371-377.

  • 2. Landro L. 2010. Radiation risks prompt push to curb CT scans. Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704299804575095502744095926.html . Accessed October 2, 2010.

  • 3. Bogdanich W. 2009. Radiation overdoses point up dangers of CT scans. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16radiation.html?ref=radiation_boom . Accessed October 2, 2010.

  • 4. Bogdanich W. 2010. After stroke scans, patients face serious health risks. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/health/01radiation.html?ref=radiation_boom . Accessed October 2, 2010.

  • 5. Bogdanich W. 2010. Case studies: when medical radiation goes awry. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/27RADIATIONSIDEBAR.html?ref=radiation_boom . Accessed October 2, 2010.

  • 6. Hensley S. 2010. Radiation meant to help cancer patients can sometimes harm. Available at: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/01/by_scott_hensley_paracelsus_re.html . Accessed October 2, 2010.

  • 7. Knox R. 2009. Radiation from CT scans may raise cancer risk. Available at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121436092 . Accessed October 2, 2010.

  • 8. Dennis M. 2010. A safe approach to medical imaging. Available at: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_15807203 . Accessed October 2, 2010.

  • 9. Higgs R. 2009. Huge increase in X-rays, CT scans poses radiation-exposure risks for patients. Available at: http://blog.cleveland.com/health/2009/03/huge_increase_in_xrays_ct_scan.html . Accessed October 2, 2010.

  • 10. Brenner D.J., Hall E.J.: Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: pp. 2277-2284.

  • 11. Brenner D.J.: Medical imaging in the 21st century—getting the best bang for the rad. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: pp. 943-945.

  • 12. Dorfman A.L., Fazel R., Einstein A.J., et. al.: Use of medical imaging procedures with ionizing radiation in children, a population-based study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2011; 165: pp. 458-464.

  • 13. Goske M.J., Applegate K.E., Boylan J., et. al.: The Image Gently campaign: working together to change practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: pp. 273-274.

  • 14. Amis E.S., Butler P.F.: ACR white paper on radiation dose in medicine: three years later. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: pp. 865-870.

  • 15. Sistrom C.L., Dang P.A., Weilburg J.B., et. al.: Effect of computerized order entry with integrated decision support on the growth of outpatient procedure volumes: seven-year time series analysis. Radiology 2009; 251: pp. 147-155.

  • 16. Blackmore C.C., Mecklenburg R.S., Kaplan G.S.: Effectiveness of clinical decision support in controlling inappropriate imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2011; 8: pp. 19-25.

  • 17. Lee C.I., Haims A.H., Monico E.P., et. al.: Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 2004; 231: pp. 393-398.

  • 18. Shiralkar S., Rennie A., Snow M., et. al.: Doctors’ knowledge of radiation exposure: questionnaire study. BMJ 2003; pp. 371-372.

  • 19. Quinn A.D., Taylor C.G., Sabharwal T., et. al.: Radiation protection awareness in non-radiologists. Br J Radiol 1997; 70: pp. 102-106.

  • 20. Jacob K., Vivian G., Steel J.R.: X-ray dose training: are we exposed to enough?. Clin Radiol 2004; 59: pp. 928-934.

  • 21. Johnson LA. 2008. Medical scans face scrutiny by insurers, doctors over safety, expense, even fraud. Available at: http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-03-24/news/17166228_1_scans-insurers-medical-imaging . Accessed June 13, 2011.

  • 22. Branstetter B.F., Faix L.E., Humphrey A.L., et. al.: Preclinical medical student training in radiology: the effect of early exposure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: pp. W9-W14.

  • 23. Collins J.: Education techniques for lifelong learning: writing multiple-choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules. RadioGraphics 2006; 26: pp. 543-551.

Academic Radiology, Volume 19, Issue 4
Journals General Radiology
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.
Recently Updated
Contents