Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education
Liesl Eibschutz,Max Yang Lu,Payam Jannatdoust,Angela C Judd,Claire A Justin,Brandon K K Fields,Natalie L Demirjian,Madan Rehani,Sravanthi Reddy,Ali Gholamrezanezhad
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-024-02284-4
Abstract:Purpose: Previous studies have demonstrated that radiologists and other providers perceive the teratogenic risks of radiologic imaging to be higher than they actually are. Thus, pregnant patients were less likely to receive ionizing radiation procedures. While it is imperative to minimize fetal radiation exposure, clinicians must remember that diagnostic studies should not be avoided due to fear of radiation, particularly if the imaging study can significantly impact patient care. Although guidelines do exist regarding how best to image pregnant patients, many providers are unaware of these guidelines and thus lack confidence when making imaging decisions for pregnant patients. This study aimed to gather information about current education, confidence in, and knowledge about emergency imaging of pregnant women among radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers. Methods: We created and distributed an anonymous survey to radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers to evaluate their knowledge and confidence in imaging pregnant patients in the emergent setting. This study included a questionnaire with the intent of knowing the correct answers among physicians primarily across the United States (along with some international participation). We conducted subgroup analyses, comparing variables by specialty, radiology subspecialty, and training levels. Based on the survey results, we subsequently developed educational training videos. Results: 108 radiologists, of which 32 self-identified as emergency radiologists, ten emergency medicine providers and six OB/GYN clinicians completed the survey. The overall correct response rate was 68.5%, though performance across questions was highly variable. Within our 18-question survey, four questions had a correct response rate under 50%, while five questions had correct response rates over 90%. Most responding physicians identified themselves as either "fairly" (58/124, 47%) or "very" (51/124, 41%) confident. Amongst specialties, there were differences in performance concerning the knowledge assessment (p = 0.049), with the strongest performance from radiologists. There were no differences in knowledge by training level (p = 0.4), though confidence levels differed significantly between attending physicians and trainees (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study highlights deficiencies in knowledge to support appropriate decision-making surrounding the imaging of pregnant patients. Our results indicate the need for improved physician education and dissemination of standardized clinical guidelines.