Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Thank you for highlighting an issue that those of us working in secondary care radiology departments witness daily. The rise in imaging demand is inevitable with the increasing decline in clinical skills/acumen, with imaging being pushed nearer the forefront of patient management (rather than the 'last resort in difficult cases" as it was in bygone times) and with more scans done for reassurance - reassurance there either is nothing wrong or that the patient really has improved clinically.
Those of us sitting on Radiation Safety Committees/Groups are able to address radiation incidents but remain powerless to stem the tide of increasing imaging as the referrals become increasing vague and so harder to 'reject' against iRefer or other imaging guidelines. We need to continue to find ways to reduce the radiation exposure per scan so as to keep doses as low as reasonable.
Competing interests:
Also Medical Director at InHealth Group
Re: Sharp rise in CT scans prompts call for new safeguards on radiation exposure
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for highlighting an issue that those of us working in secondary care radiology departments witness daily. The rise in imaging demand is inevitable with the increasing decline in clinical skills/acumen, with imaging being pushed nearer the forefront of patient management (rather than the 'last resort in difficult cases" as it was in bygone times) and with more scans done for reassurance - reassurance there either is nothing wrong or that the patient really has improved clinically.
Those of us sitting on Radiation Safety Committees/Groups are able to address radiation incidents but remain powerless to stem the tide of increasing imaging as the referrals become increasing vague and so harder to 'reject' against iRefer or other imaging guidelines. We need to continue to find ways to reduce the radiation exposure per scan so as to keep doses as low as reasonable.
Competing interests: Also Medical Director at InHealth Group