کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
6083567 | 1205999 | 2014 | 5 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
BackgroundRising use of computed tomography (CT) to evaluate patients with trauma has increased both patient costs and risk of cancer from ionizing radiation, without demonstrable improvements in outcome. Patient-centred care mandates disclosure of the potential risks, costs and benefits of diagnostic testing whenever possible.ObjectiveWe sought to determine (1) patient preferences regarding emergency department (ED) real-time discussions of risks and costs of CT during their trauma evaluations; and (2) whether varying levels of odds of detection of life-threatening injury (LTI) were associated with changes in patient preferences for CT.MethodsExcluding patients already receiving CT and patients with altered mental status, we surveyed adult, English-speaking patients at four Level I verified trauma centres. After informing subjects of cancer risks associated with chest CT, we used hypothetical scenarios with varying LTIs to assess patientsâ¨tm) preferences regarding CT.ResultsOf 941 patients enrolled, 50% were male and their mean age was 42 years. Most patients stated they would prefer to discuss CT radiation risks (73.5%, 95% CI [66.1
- 80.8]) and costs (53.2%, 95% CI [46.1
- 60.4]) with physicians. As the odds of detecting LTI decreased, preferences for receiving CT decreased accordingly: LTI 25% (desire 91.2%, 95% CI [89.4
- 93.1]), LTI 10% (desire 79.3%, 95% CI [76.7
- 81.9]), LTI 5% (desire 69.1%, 95% CI [66.1
- 72.1]) and LTI <2% (desire 53.8%, 95% CI [50.6
- 57.0]). If the LTI was <2% and subjects were required to pay $1000 out-of-pocket, only 34.5% (95% CI 31.4
- 37.5) would opt for CT.ConclusionMost non-critically injured patients prefer to discuss radiation risks and costs of CT prior to receiving imaging. As the odds of detecting LTI decrease, fewer patients prefer to have CT; at an LTI threshold of 2%, approximately half of patients would prefer to forego CT. Adding out-of-pocket costs reduced this proportion to one-third of patients.
Journal: Injury - Volume 45, Issue 9, September 2014, Pages 1345-1349