Characterizing imaging studies in healthy pediatric patients in an ambulatory center: parental perceptions, beliefs and expectations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51987/revhospitalbaires.v41i1.61Keywords:
radiation, pediatrics, parentsAbstract
Introduction: ediatric radiologic exams (PRE) are of great value for clinicians. It’s over or misuse can lead to irreparable damage that can be prevented.
Objective: to describe perceptions and expectations for the use of PRE among healthy children`s parents in an ambulatory center. To analyze these results in relation to the report of PRE performed in the emergency room during the same period.
Methods: observational, cross sectional, quali- quantitative study using a survey on a convenience sample conducted in an outpatient pediatric center over a two months period. Retrospective analysis of medical records to evaluate PRE requested on the ER during the 2 months of the study.
Results: 243 parents completed the survey. 93,4% were familiar with PRE (X-rays being the most popular among them). 83,4% of children in our sample had at least one PRE in the past 12 months. The need and utility of the study had been explained to the parents clearly in 96,4% of cases. 47,7% of parents knew about the side effects associated with repetitive use of PRE. 81,6% agreed with the statement “in the event that a child should suffer any trauma, an X-Ray should be performed to look for fractures”. Over 60% think a chest X ray has to be obtained if the child has
fever for over 48 hours and 55% would expect an X ray to be performed whenever a child has green nasal discharge. 49,8% respondents think that doctors order less than necessary (for lack of resources, unwillingness to work in or to save money). The analysis of clinical reports showed that X-Rays were performed to 5% of children at the emergency clinic. Among them, we found no reason for the study in 29% of the cases.
Conclusion: we found that parents were very familiar with PRE, however less than half our sample knew of the potential risks related to their use. There are considerable misconceptions among parents regarding X-Ray use. Parents considered that doctors order too little PRE.
Downloads
References
Wildman-Tobriner B, Parente VM, Maxfield CM. Pediatric providers and radiology examinations: knowledge and comfort levels regarding ionizing radiation and potential complications of imaging. Pediatr Radiol. 2017;47:1730-1736. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3969-8
Baumann BM, Chen EH, Mills AM, et al. Patient perceptions of computed tomographic imaging and their understanding of radiation risk and exposure. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;58(1):1-7.e2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.10.018
Carvajal MC, Vallejo R, Bazaes R, et al. Percepción de la población respecto a los riesgos asociados a los estudios de imágenes. Rev Chil Radiol. 2012;18(2):80-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-93082012000200008
Ruiz-García-de-Chacón V, Quezada-Márquez MM, Ríos-Villasis LK, et al. Percepción de riesgos asociados a estudios por imágenes en usuarios del Servicio de Radiología Oral de una Facultad de Odontología. Rev Estomatol Herediana. 2014;24(4):239-247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20453/reh.2014.2166
Guillerman RP. From ‘Image Gently’ to image intelligently: a personalized perspective on diagnostic radiation risk. Pediatr Radiol. 2014;44(Suppl 3):444-449. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3037-6
Boutis K, Cogollo W, Fischer J, et al. Parental knowledge of potential cancer risks from exposure to computed tomography. Pediatrics. 2013;132(2):305-311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0378
Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2012;380(9840):499-505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60815-0
Daramola OO, Lidder AK, Ramli R, et al. Patient knowledge and perception of computed tomography scan in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. Laryngoscope. 2015;125(4):791-795. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24992
Studdert DM, Mello MM, Sage WM, et al. Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA. 2005; 293(21):2609-2617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.21.2609
Mondaca R. Por qué reducir las dosis de radiación en pediatría. Rev Chil Radiol. 2006;12(1):28-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-93082006000100008
Lonegro L. Indicación racional de estudios por imágenes. [Buenos Aires: Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría; 2014]. PRONAP 2014; Módulo 2: Cap. 1.
Gentile F. Radiaciones: uso racional de los estudios de diagnóstico por imágenes en pediatría. [Buenos Aires: Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría; 2008]. PRONAP 2008; Módulo 3.
Newman B, Callahan M. ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) CT 2011—executive summary. Pediatr Radiol. 2011;41(Suppl 2):S453-S455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-011-2154-8
Applegate KE, Cost NG. Image Gently: a campaign to reduce children's and adolescents' risk for cancer during adulthood. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(5 Suppl) S93-S97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.03.006
Jennings RM, Burtner JJ, Pellicer JF, et al. Reducing head CT use for children with head injuries in a community emergency department. Pediatrics. 2017;139(4):e20161349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1349
Xu KT, Roberts D, Sulapas I, et al. Over-prescribing of antibiotics and imaging in the management of uncomplicated URIs in emergency departments. BMC Emerg Med. 2013;13:7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-227X-13-7
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
