Balancing Patient Demands and Physician Orders for Radiation Tests at the ER and Elsewhere
Posted Jun 23 2010 8:14pm
Photo by badjonni via Flickr
[Ed. Note: We are pleased to welcome Jennifer Jascoll to HRW. She is a second-year evening student at Seton Hall Law and a Research Assistant for the school’s Healthcare Compliance Certification Program. She received her bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Bryn Mawr College and her master’s degree in Comparative Politics (Empire) from the London School of Economics and Political Science.]
Falling down stairs. Hitting my head on a bowling ball. Breaking my ankle and tearing two ligaments. These are a few of the incidents that have landed me in the emergency room with a CT scan or an X-ray. The AP has recently run four thought-provoking articles about the problems of balancing necessary and unnecessary tests administered during visits to the ER and elsewhere.
When should a person go to the ER? The American College of Emergency Physicians Foundation and other sources provide “tips” about the necessity of an ER visit when a person experiences symptoms such as:
Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath
Chest or upper abdominal pain or pressure lasting two minutes or more
Loss of consciousness or sudden dizziness and weakness
Confusion or changes in mental status
Fair enough. The Foundation further advises patients to lower costs and “avoid unnecessary tests and procedures” by asking:
Is this the best test or treatment?
What are its costs, benefits, and risks?
Are there alternative tests that are cheaper or less risky?
Why do I need this test now, and what would happen if I don’t get it now?
Seems like common sense. But just how many of us question the tests and procedures we undergo at the local ER? Probably as many who think to ask whether our attending ER physician, in addition to the ER itself, is covered by our insurance. After all, if a person is experiencing dizziness and confusion after hitting her head on a bowling ball, I doubt she will haggle over the necessity of a CT scan (or whether her attending physician is covered, which my father later tackled with the insurance company).
[t]he fear of missing something weighs heavily on every doctor’s mind. But the stakes are highest in the ER, and that fear often leads to extra blood tests and imaging scans for what may be harmless chest pains, run-of-the-mill head bumps, and non-threatening stomachaches.
Our citizens receive more medical radiation than those in any other country and no one neither physicians nor patients really seems to be keeping track of the dose accumulation. At least for the moment. Marchione writes that:
[d]octors don’t keep track of radiation given their patients they order a test, not a dose. Except for mammograms, there are no federal rules on radiation dose. Children and young women, who are most vulnerable to radiation harm, sometimes get too much at busy imaging centers that don’t adjust doses for each patient’s size.
That may soon change…. FDA officials [have] described steps in the works, including possibly requiring device makers to print the radiation dose on each X-ray or other image so patients and doctors can see how much was given.
The FDA also is pushing industry and doctors to set standard doses for common tests such as CT scans.
There are efforts to educate patients on the risk of side effects from unnecessary radiation exposure in order to curb demand. AP medical writer Lauran Neergaard reports on a Minnesota health cooperative which displays national radiology guidelines in a patient’s electronic medical records whenever a physician orders a scan. The guidelines help physicians deal with patient pressure and determine whether a radiation scan is necessary. The cooperative estimates it prevented 20,000 unnecessary tests and saved $14 million through this process. Archives of Internal Medicine, an American Medical Association journal, also started a “Less is More” feature which, according to editor Dr. Rita F. Redberg, offers articles “that document cases in which less health care results in better health and offer[s] commentary on the specific implications.”
Patients are advised to question the necessity of a radiation scan and physicians are advised to reconsider ordering one, but just how many will do so and what will it really take to get people to listen on a national scale?