From: "Izan Gill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thanks Dieter, I'd like to see those guidelines.
With no close Radiologist backup, it's reasonably easy to convince the 2 ho= spital doctors of any change to previously accepted gospel, but much harder= to win over the 8 local GPs.=20 Last year's PHO has gone to start his Radiology training and I've asked him= for details; I assume that the RNZACR Imaging Guidelines book is his regul= ar bedtime reading.=20 As to price - is this the same for erect/ supine and plain supine? I just f= ill in the Medicare form as AXR, not E/ S and have had no queries. Izan Gill >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/05/03 09:09pm >>> From: Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Our department of casual medicine has recently introduced guidlines for the= requesting of abdominal xrays which are both reasonable and=20 intuitive. They go a long way to reducing axr -sup and erect on every abdo= pain that walks through the door. Unfortunately the new batch of interns/residents needs to be retrained=20 along those guidelines, hopfully before their 6 months is up and they move= on and we get another batch. I'll post the guidelines soon Dieter At 08:44 4/02/2003 +1000, you wrote: > From: "Fraser Levey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Maybe so, but it does suggest to referring doctors what is clinically=20 >relevant and >does reduce spurious requesting to some extent. It gives the radiographer= >some >written back up when faced with a request of dubious clinical worth. >Anything which backs up the radiographer's position as the radiation=20 >safety expert >has to be a good thing. > >I'm fine thanks, and you? > > > >>> John Andersen 02/03/03 02:53pm >>> >Really!! That book is written with the $'s sign in mind, not radiation hea= lth. > > >How are you by the way? > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/02/2003 12:48:30 pm >>> >From: "Fraser Levey" < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Try the RANZCR Imaging Guidelines book, the UK's College of Radiologists= >does a >similar book as well, both contain useful information on what is viewed by >radiologists as clinically relevant. >I strongly recommend the use of the RANZCR Imaging Guidelines though. >Fraser. > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/03/03 11:41am >>> >From: "Izan Gill" < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >I'd be very interested to see the rationale for supine only. I get rather= >a lot of >"routine" erect/ supine AXRs with CXR and would like some way of cutting= >back,with >literature (not necessarily from textbooks) to back this up. I've heard=20 >this viewpoint >before. > >For shaky/ frail patients I used always sit them with their back to the=20 >erect bucky, >(provided they could sit up that is) and do an erect film that way. The=20 >thighs did tend >to get in the way a little, but it worked well. However, where I=20 >work now, the tube >does not come low enough to do that. So it's either risk standing=20 >the patient up or a >decubitus. >Izan GiIl > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/02/03 04:48pm >>> >From: "Rita Richter" < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >Very valid point about the radiation dose with the extra erect abdo film. > >Does that mean therefore that most places do only a supine film and AP=20 >chest=3D20 >in the bed? > > >Rita > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][ mailto:owner- >[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Fraser Levey >Sent: Friday, 31 January 03 1:37 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 >Subject: Re: [AIRNEWS] Risk Management >From: "Fraser Levey" < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Interesting point from a radiation safety perspective too. Many UK=20 >hospitals do not >routinely perform Erect Abdomens as they are seen as clinically=20 >irrelevant. Most >pathology demonstrated is either clinically obvious or radiologically=20 >ambiguous. > >The elimination of such examinations would reduce a patients skin entrance= >dose >by about 3.5 mGy, which is a fair old amount, which equates to about 35 PA= =3D20 >chest exposures worth of radiation. > >This, combined with the far greater risk of patients keeling over, would= >make me >wish to ensure that the referral is justified before exposing patients. > >Fraser. > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/31/03 09:33am >>> >From: "Garry Cain" < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >do you really need an erect abdo at all. we have one radiologist that=20 >insists we do >not. Is it then possible to eliminate this exam and thus the risk (we=20 >haven't been >able to eliminate due to referral base and other radiologists non acceptan= ce) +=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+ =3D+=3D+=3D+=3D+=3D This message is being broadcast by AIRNEWS, the Australian Institute of Radiography list Server Send messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 For assistance send mail to owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 Commands should be sent to airnews- [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 Opinions expressed on this list are not necessarily those of the moderator, his assistants or those of the A.I.R. ********************************************************************** This e-mail, including any attachments sent with it, is confidential=20 and for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). This confidentiality=20 is not waived or lost if you receive it and you are not the intended=20 recipient(s), or if it is transmitted/ received in error. =20 Any unauthorised use, alteration, disclosure, distribution or review=20 of this e-mail is prohibited. It may be subject to a statutory duty of=20 confidentiality if it relates to health service matters. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or if you have received this=20 e-mail in error, you are asked to immediately notify the sender by=20 telephone or by return e-mail. You should also delete this e- mail=20 message and destroy any hard copies produced. ********************************************************************** +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= This message is being broadcast by AIRNEWS, the Australian Institute of Radiography list Server Send messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For assistance send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Commands should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opinions expressed on this list are not necessarily those of the moderator, his assistants or those of the A.I.R.
