Mcqs In Radiology For Residents And Technologists 2ed (pb 2017) Pdf Download

Objectives: To investigate and compare the knowledge of radiation dose and risk incurred in common radiology examinations among radiology residents, fellows, staff radiologists and technologists.

Methods: A questionnaire containing 17 multiple choice questions was administered to all residents, technologists, fellows and staff radiologists of the department of medical imaging through the hospital group mailing list.

Download File 🔥 https://geags.com/2y7pxj 🔥

Conclusions: Our results show a variable level of knowledge about radiation dose and risk among radiology residents, fellows, staff radiologists and technologists, but overall knowledge is inadequate in all groups. There is significant underestimation of dosage and cancer risk from common examinations, which could potentially lead to suboptimal risk assessment and excessive or unwarranted studies posing significant radiation hazard to the patient and radiology workers.

Background: Radiology residents are often tasked with deciding whether a patient can safely undergo a magnetic resonance (MRI) imaging scan. To correctly make these decisions the residents need to have strong knowledge about MRI safety issues. There are gaps in radiology resident knowledge about MRI safety that might be addressed with a variety of educational interventions.

Methods: We assessed baseline MRI safety knowledge of Detroit Medical Center radiology residents (number=35) with a 10 question quiz. The radiology residents were then provided a PowerPoint presentation that summarizes recent review articles about MRI safety. Next, the residents took the same quiz again. We compared the pre- and post-intervention quiz scores.

Results: 10 radiology residents (28.6%) completed the pre-quiz and 9 radiology residents (25.7%) completed the post-quiz. When comparing the pre- and post-intervention quiz scores, the t stat = -2.020 and p one-tail= 0.03. As p < 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected, and we can conclude that mean post-quiz score > pre-quiz score with statistical significance.

Conclusion: There was a statistically significant increase in mean quiz score after residents reviewed a PowerPoint on MRI safety. Therefore, we achieved the primary objective by increasing resident knowledge about MRI safety. The participating residents can now make decisions about MRI safety with more accuracy and confidence. The primary limitation of this study was that fewer than 30% of the radiology residents participated and the respondents were skewed towards the early training years.

There are multiple patient safety issues associated with MRI imaging due to the strong magnetic field and rapidly changing gradients, as well as concerns about administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. The MRI technologist or radiology nursing staff frequently contact on-call radiology residents to resolve their concerns and specifically to ask whether a patient can be safely scanned or can safely receive contrast. Hollingsworth, et al,1 found gaps in radiology resident knowledge about these issues. Swenson, et al,2 assessed whether online modules or live lectures would improve resident knowledge about MRI safety and found statistically significant improvement in resident knowledge after intervention with both online modules and live lectures.

We assessed baseline knowledge of Detroit Medical Center radiology residents (number=35) with a quiz of 10 multiple choice questions about the topics of MRI magnet and contrast safety. The quiz included an additional question asking how long it took the respondent to complete the quiz. We also asked the residents their current training year. Residents were not asked to identify themselves and the scores were anonymous. The radiology residents were then provided a 17-slide PowerPoint presentation file that summarizes recent review articles 3,4 about MRI safety. Residents had the opportunity to download and self-review the PowerPoint file. The topics covered in the PowerPoint presentation included: basic MRI physics, medical device and implant MRI compatibility, regulations regarding maximum specific absorption rate and acoustic levels, assessment of risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and other issues related to the use of IV gadolinium, MRI safety zones, and management of emergencies near the scanner. Next, the residents retook the same quiz. Time delays between the preintervention quiz, reviewing the PowerPoint and then retesting were not specified and the residents self-selected when they retook the post-intervention quiz. We compared the mean of the pre- and post-intervention quiz scores and time to complete using t-tests.

10 radiology residents (28.6%) completed the pre-quiz, which included 4 first-year, 3 second-year, 2 third-year, and 1 fourth-year residents. 9 radiology residents (25.7%) completed the post-quiz, which included 4 first-year, 2 second-year, 2 third-year, and 1 fourth-year residents. See Figures 1 and 2 for quiz scores. Regarding the quiz scores, the t stat = -2.020 and p one-tail= 0.03. As p < 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected, and we can conclude that mean post-quiz score > pre-quiz score with statistical significance.

One limitation of this study is that fewer than 30% of the radiology residents participated and the respondents were skewed towards the early training years. This may have impacted the results as intervention would be expected to result in greater increase in knowledge for less experienced residents. Additionally, there was no specific time delay between reviewing the PowerPoint, and the post-quiz, so that long term and intermediate term retention were not assessed. As the scores were anonymous, individual improvement could not be assessed and only mean changes were assessed. 9af72c28ce