Radiographers perceptions of magnetic resonance imaging: a study of the causes that lead to the exams repetition

Purpose: To know how often occur the repetitions of MRI exams and sequences in radiology departments. Methods and Materials: A self applied-questionnaire was used as instrument and assigned to 57 radiographers who performed MRI exams to determine which were the causes that lead to the repetition. The questionnaires were interpreted and statistically analyzed through descriptive statistics and Spearman’s rho correlations. Results: At a 95% confidence interval, the major results suggest that the patient’s movement during de MRI exams is the main cause to repeat this exams (mean of 3.88 on a 5 points likert scale). However, there are causes related to the radiographer’s and the results showed that the introduction of wrong imaging parameters by the performer are a major cause too (N=26). Spearman rho correlations between radiographer’s time of experience and frequency of MRI exams repetitions were poor and not significant (r=0.141; p=0.297). The correlations between radiographer’s tiredness and frequency of MRI exams repetitions were negative, weak and not significant (r= -0.151; p=0.263). Conclusion: The patients’ movement may disrupt the examination or degrade the images with artifacts. The level of experience doesn’t influence the repetitions of MRI exams, it seems that seniors radiographers don’t have improvements in performance as it should be expected. It’s recommendable to do training courses regularly to improve the performance and systematically evaluate. Several features will need to be identified which would decrease the MRI exams repetitions.

Patient´s knowledge about radiation and radiological protection

Purpose: To obtain and analyse patient´s knowledge and perceptions regarding radiation exposure, from both natural and man-made radiation of medical procedures and interventions. Verify if patients worry about their exposure when undergoing medical exams, are aware of associated risks and means of radiological protection and if their knowledge on medical radiation exposure affects their own decisions. Methods and Materials: On a medical environment a self-applied questionnaire was used as instrument and assigned to patients who would undergo medical imaging exams involving ionising radiation. A total of 300 valid questionnaires were interpreted and statistically analysed through descriptive statistics and Phi & Cramer´s V correlation tests. Results: 44.3% of patients believe most of their exposure derives from electronic appliances and 25% from medical imaging exams, while patient´s with higher education levels tend to consider is comes from the environment. The great majority of patients (95%) consider that only certified personnel should operate medical imaging equipment, but 74% never ask for their qualifications. 66.3% of patients claim that Technologists have more education on radiological protection and about 60% of patients rarely or never worry about radiation exposure when undergoing medical imaging exams. Conclusion: Patients overestimate the risks of industrial radiation exposure while they underestimate the associated risks of medical radiation exposure and the Technologist´s ability to reduce the inherent radiation exposure of medical imaging exams. Patient´s knowledge on radiation and radiological protection is based more on perceptions and beliefs, rather than factual knowledge.