Clinical radiology · 2009
Are UK radiologists satisfied with the training and support received in suspected child abuse?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Leung R S, Nwachuckwu C, Pervaiz A, Wallace C, Landes C, Offiah A C
Аннотация
AIM: To determine current practice and perceptions of the adequacy of training and support received for the reporting of skeletal surveys in suspected physical child abuse.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A list of telephone numbers of UK hospitals with a radiology department was obtained from the Royal College of Radiologists. One hundred hospitals were then randomly selected for inclusion in the survey. An 18-item questionnaire was successfully administered to consultant radiologists from 84 departments.
RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of departments had a named radiologist to report their skeletal surveys, 16% assigned surveys to a random radiologist, and 23% referred them elsewhere. Only 52% of departments had a dedicated paediatric radiologist, thus in a significant proportion of departments (25%) initial reports on skeletal surveys for physical abuse were provided by non-paediatric radiologists. Fifteen percent did not have ready access to a paediatric radiology opinion. Sixty-one percent thought that the service could be improved. Expert evidence was provided by 5% of respondents. Seventy-three percent would never consider providing expert evidence, even if given adequate radiology and/or legal training.
CONCLUSION: The survey shows significant dissatisfaction amongst consultant radiologists with the current service, confirms a low number of paediatric radiologists taking on this work, and suggests the potential to increase numbers of radiology child abuse experts by 27% if given improved training and support. Appropriate service and education strategies should be implemented.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A list of telephone numbers of UK hospitals with a radiology department was obtained from the Royal College of Radiologists. One hundred hospitals were then randomly selected for inclusion in the survey. An 18-item questionnaire was successfully administered to consultant radiologists from 84 departments.
RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of departments had a named radiologist to report their skeletal surveys, 16% assigned surveys to a random radiologist, and 23% referred them elsewhere. Only 52% of departments had a dedicated paediatric radiologist, thus in a significant proportion of departments (25%) initial reports on skeletal surveys for physical abuse were provided by non-paediatric radiologists. Fifteen percent did not have ready access to a paediatric radiology opinion. Sixty-one percent thought that the service could be improved. Expert evidence was provided by 5% of respondents. Seventy-three percent would never consider providing expert evidence, even if given adequate radiology and/or legal training.
CONCLUSION: The survey shows significant dissatisfaction amongst consultant radiologists with the current service, confirms a low number of paediatric radiologists taking on this work, and suggests the potential to increase numbers of radiology child abuse experts by 27% if given improved training and support. Appropriate service and education strategies should be implemented.