Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Spring, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Margulis, A. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Spring, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Margulis, A. R.

Radiology, Vol 152, 609-613, Copyright © 1984 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Informed consent for intravenous contrast-enhanced radiography: a national survey of practice and opinion

DB Spring, JR Akin and AR Margulis

A detailed questionnaire regarding the obtaining of patient consent for the administration of intravenous contrast agents was sent to 3845 radiologists in those hospitals across the United States having more than 100 beds. The results represent the current community practice and opinion of the 1547 radiologists (40%) who answered. They showed that 66% of respondents obtained no type of informed consent before injecting intravenous contrast agents. Half of those who did obtain consent did not inform their patients of possible specific major adverse reactions. Half of those who did not obtain consent believed the risk of adverse reaction was remote. Another 40% believed the consent procedure might heighten anxiety and, therefore, increase the risk of reaction. Obtaining informed consent, however, was not significantly associated with an increased incidence of major reactions. Since 8% of the respondents indicated some involvement in malpractice lawsuits regarding the question of informed consent for various procedures, the obtaining of informed consent might lessen the risk of exposure to malpractice litigation. Additional results showed that written consent did not appear to lessen the number of studies performed and that it offered more specific information to the patient regarding complications. Finally, most radiologists (80%) requested a specific policy regarding informed consent from at least one of the following organizations: the American College of Radiology (ACR) (96%), the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) (26%), state chapters of the ACR (15%).


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
C. I. Lee, H. V. Flaster, A. H. Haims, E. P. Monico, and H. P. Forman
Diagnostic CT scans: institutional informed consent guidelines and practices at academic medical centers.
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2006; 187(2): 282 - 287.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
P. D. Jacobson and C. J. Rosenquist
The Use of Low-Osmolar Contrast Agents: Technological Change and Defensive Medicine
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, June 1, 1996; 21(2): 243 - 266.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1984 by the Radiological Society of North America.