This evaluation identifies barriers and suggests protocol modifications for better diagnostic quality in disabled patients, indicating an urgent need for improved training and equipment.
Disabled patients who undergo radiological examinations have been noted to receive a higher radiation dose due to physical accessibility limitations, imaging protocol inflexibility, and communication barriers. This study aims to evaluate and identify areas for improvement in nuclear medicine (NM) department protocols that support greater accessibility, safety, and diagnostic quality for patients with disabilities. The study involved 52 participants, including medical physicists, radiologists, and NM technologists. A standardized questionnaire gathered information on facility preparation, protocol modifications, difficulties, training requirements, and technological advancements. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26, incorporating descriptive statistics and chi-square testing. The majority of participants were NM technologists (78.4%). Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) systems were available at a rate of 72.5%, whereas single-photon emission CT/CT systems were available at a rate of 68.6%. Adaptive techniques comprised sedation (54.9%), different positions (68.6%), and shorter protocols (78.4%). Significant obstacles included patient immobility (84.3%) and challenges in placement (70.6%). Only 31.4% underwent formal training in the management of people with disabilities. While 88.2% conveyed trust, 86.3% advocated for additional technical solutions, underlining the urgent need for such measures. No substantial correlation was identified between professional role and imaging results or difficulties. Notwithstanding adaptive measures, significant shortcomings persist in training, equipment, and standardized imaging methodologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salah et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: