Many radiology residents spend only a few months on rotations in pediatric radiology, and important topics do not get the attention they deserve. Yet there are crucial differences between the radiology of adults and children that every resident needs to learn about. Those who may be called on to care for infants and children need to understand how to approach the challenges younger patients can present. This article provides an overview of the pediatric patient’s experience.
Signs of distress among pediatric imaging patients are not uncommon. In many departments, patients can be seen weeping, protesting, and even actively resisting the efforts of radiology personnel . In some cases, examinations must be cancelled for lack of patient and/or family member cooperation, wasting time and resources, fomenting frustration, and delaying or even preventing an important step in the patient’s care. Also, the distress of one patient, as manifested by cries of distress, can ripple through an entire department, heightening the anxiety of others.
The “contagion” of anxiety applies not only to patients, but also to family members. Sometimes the greatest source of a pediatric patient’s distress lies not in the patient but in the fears of a parent . On some occasions, patients arrive for their imaging procedure positively terrified because of what they have been told by a family member. Efforts to calm fears frequently need to take into account the patient’s family, and some of the most important work is often done before the patient even arrives in the radiology department .
Potentially frightening aspects of the pediatric patient’s imaging experience include the hospital’s sights (obviously sick people), sounds (patients in distress), odors (rubbing alcohol), the equipment (which might be mistaken for an instrument of torture), prolonged isolation and/or immobilization, and the discomfort and even pain associated with imaging procedures themselves, such as the insertion of an intravenous line or nasogastric tube.
One key to reducing this anxiety is to anticipate both immediate and longer-term adverse effects of imaging procedures. The immediate effects are obvious: the patient recoils in fear, fights against the technologist, nurse, or radiologist, or bursts into tears. But the effects of anxiety can also be longer term, manifesting only after the patient and the family have left the radiology department. For example, children who have endured one stressful experience may develop heightened anxiety toward future healthcare encounters .
Consider how “unnatural” some imaging procedures, such as a voiding cystourethrogram, may seem to a pediatric patient. Many children have been repeatedly told by parents and teachers that they should never let anyone see or touch their “private parts.” Many have also been encouraged to void only on the toilet and chided for doing so under any other circumstances. Now, however, they are being asked not only to allow a stranger to see and touch but also to insert a catheter into this private anatomy, and then they are told to void on a table in front of strangers. Moreover, it is not infrequent that patients referred for voiding cystourethrogram have a history of a failed catheterization at an outside facility. Such experiences naturally evoke confusion and distress, which can be further compounded if radiology personnel are not understanding and patient.
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. Volkl-Kernstock S., Felber M., Schabmann A., et. al.: Comparing stress levels in children aged 2–8 years and in their accompanying parents during first-time versus repeated voiding cystourethrograms. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2008; 120: pp. 414-421.
2. Smith R.W., Shah V., Goldman R.D., et. al.: Caregivers’ responses to pain in their children in the emergency department. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007; 161: pp. 578-582.
3. Linder J., Schiska A.D.: Imaging children: tips and tricks. J Radiol Nurs 2007; 26: pp. 23-25.
4. Stashinko E.E., Goldberger J.: Test or trauma? The voiding cystourethrogram experience of young children. Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs 1998; 21: pp. 85-96.
5. Alexander M.: Managing patient stress in pediatric radiology. Radiol Technol 2012; 83: pp. 549-560.
6. Cohen L.L.: Behavioral approaches to anxiety and pain management for pediatric venous access. Pediatrics 2008; 122: pp. S134-S139.
7. Hoerl K.H.: Reducing trauma of voiding cystourethrograms without sedation. J Radiol Nurs 2009; 28: pp. 73-76.
8. Srivastava T., Betts G., Rosenberg A.R., et. al.: Perception of fear, distress and pain by parents of children undergoing a micturating cystourethrogram: a prospective study. J Paediatr Child Health 2001; 37: pp. 271-273.
9. Koller D., Goldman R.D.: Distraction techniques for children undergoing procedures: a critical review of pediatric research. J Pediatr Nurs 2012; 27: pp. 652-681.
10. Courtier J., Cardenas A., Tan C., et. al.: Nonanesthesia magnetic resonance enterography in young children: feasibility, technique, and performance. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2015; 60: pp. 754-761.
11. McGee K.: The role of a child life specialist in a pediatric radiology department. Pediatr Radiol 2003; 33: pp. 467-474.
12. Barnea-goraly N., Weinzimer S.A., Ruedy K.J., et. al.: High success rates of sedation-free brain MRI scanning in young children using simple subject preparation protocols with and without a commercial mock scanner—the Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) experience. Pediatr Radiol 2014; 44: pp. 181-186.