Search

Purpose: To explore the patient perception on radiation-related cancer risk from interventional radiology (IR) procedures and whether informed radiation consent is warranted., Methods: A multiple-choice survey was prospectively administered to 68 adults undergoing a body or neuro-IR procedure with ionizing radiation exposure. Subgroup analysis with chi-square or Fisher exact test was performed based on patient past IR history (P < .05)., Results: A total of 81% of patients wanted to be informed if there was a radiation-related 3% increased cancer risk over 5 years. Although 55% considered 3% a small risk, 28% wanted to further discuss the risks and alternate options, and 15% would have only proceeded if it were a life-saving procedure: 89%, 80%, and 67% of patients wanted to be informed with exposure risks of 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, and 1 in 10,000, respectively. Only 53% were aware they were going to be exposed to radiation, irrespective of past IR history (P = .15). Most patients believed radiation consent should include radiation-related cancer risks (85%). No past IR history was significantly associated with wanting consent to include cancer-related risk (100% vs 76%; P = .01) and deterministic risks (70% vs 41%; P = .04). A majority (69%) believed both the referring physician and the interventional radiologist were responsible for obtaining radiation consent, and 65% of patients wanted verbal consent followed by signed written consent, regardless of past IR history., Conclusions: Many patients want to discuss cancer-related radiation risks with both radiologists and physicians. Informed radiation consent should be considered for procedures with high anticipated radiation doses., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose The study sought to assess how academic interventional radiologists determine and disclose to patients the intraprocedural role of radiology residents in the interventional radiology (IR) suite. Methods A qualitative study consisting of in-person interviews with 9 academic interventional radiologists from 3 hospitals was conducted. Interviews were transcribed, and underwent modified thematic analysis. Results Seven themes emerged. 1) Interventional radiologists permit residents to perform increasingly complex procedures with graded responsibility. While observed technical ability is important in determining the extent of resident participation, possessing good judgement and knowing personal limitations are paramount. 2) Interventional radiologists do not explicitly inform patients in detail about residents' intraprocedural role, as trainee involvement is viewed as implicit at academic institutions. 3) While patients are advised of resident participation in IR procedures, detailed disclosure of their role is viewed as potentially detrimental to both patient well-being and trainee education. 4) Interventional radiologists believe that patients might be less likely to refuse resident involvement if they meet them prior to procedures. 5) While it is rare that patients refuse resident participation in their care, interventional radiologists' duty to respect patient autonomy supersedes their obligation to resident education. 6) Interventional radiologists are responsible for any intraprocedural, trainee-related complication. 7) Trainees should be present when complications are disclosed to patients. Conclusion Interventional radiologists recognize the confidence placed in them, and they do not inform patients in detail about residents' role in IR procedures. Respecting patient autonomy is paramount, and while rare, obeying patients' wishes can potentially be at the expense of resident education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]