T W Chen1, S Y Ng, E J Whaites. 1. Guy's, King's and St Thomas' Dental Institute, King's College, University of London, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This was a pilot study to determine the ability of hospital doctors (1) to assess the technical quality of occipitomental (OM) radiographs and (2) to identify facial fractures. METHOD: Twenty-two doctors from four UK Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments participated in a two part study: Part A was a postal questionnaire containing questions on demographic data, educational background, selection criteria, assessing radiographs and radiation protection; and Part B was a clinical viewing session to interpret 20 randomized OM radiographs divided into four groups; technically good and poor without fractures, and technically good and poor with fractures. RESULTS: Study participants ranged from junior house officers to senior consultants. There was considerable variation in educational background and radiographic interpretation instruction at undergraduate and postgraduate level. OM radiographs constituted 10% of all skull radiographs examined per week, yet only 40% of the doctors felt confident when assessing technical quality. The majority of participants had only a limited knowledge of radiation protection legislation. During the viewing session, only 50% of the participants correctly identified those radiographs with fractures and those with technique errors. There was no significant difference between house officers and other grades of staff. A higher level of seniority did not equate with greater interpretative ability. Subjective confidence in assessing film quality did not correlate with the actual film viewing. CONCLUSION: Only half of the A&E doctors taking part in the study were able to correctly assess film quality and identify facial fractures on OM radiographs. If the pilot sample is representative, then the findings are of considerable concern.
OBJECTIVES: This was a pilot study to determine the ability of hospital doctors (1) to assess the technical quality of occipitomental (OM) radiographs and (2) to identify facial fractures. METHOD: Twenty-two doctors from four UK Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments participated in a two part study: Part A was a postal questionnaire containing questions on demographic data, educational background, selection criteria, assessing radiographs and radiation protection; and Part B was a clinical viewing session to interpret 20 randomized OM radiographs divided into four groups; technically good and poor without fractures, and technically good and poor with fractures. RESULTS: Study participants ranged from junior house officers to senior consultants. There was considerable variation in educational background and radiographic interpretation instruction at undergraduate and postgraduate level. OM radiographs constituted 10% of all skull radiographs examined per week, yet only 40% of the doctors felt confident when assessing technical quality. The majority of participants had only a limited knowledge of radiation protection legislation. During the viewing session, only 50% of the participants correctly identified those radiographs with fractures and those with technique errors. There was no significant difference between house officers and other grades of staff. A higher level of seniority did not equate with greater interpretative ability. Subjective confidence in assessing film quality did not correlate with the actual film viewing. CONCLUSION: Only half of the A&E doctors taking part in the study were able to correctly assess film quality and identify facial fractures on OM radiographs. If the pilot sample is representative, then the findings are of considerable concern.