Radiologic technology

Radiologic technology
Introduction
The use of radiology has revolutionized the field of medicine. The technology uses imaging and screening in diagnosing of patients. The technology, however, has been controversial in many quarters with on one side rooting for it while others are arguing against it. The innovation of radiological technology has been listed in many magazines as one of the greatest innovations that mankind has seen despite it raising various controversies on its application and use. Those for it base on the many countless lives that the technology has saved while those against the technology argue that technology although saves lives do more harm and good. This paper looks at both the arguments raised for and against the use of radiological technology.
To begin with, it’s imperative to understand what is radiology and the methods used in radiology. Radiologic technology is a medical specialization where medical imaging is done with the aim of diagnosing and treating diseases that are seen through the body by use of the radiology technology. The people responsible for this are called radiology technologists. The imaging techniques used for radiology include, X- ray radiography, nuclear medicine that involves the use (PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the use computed tomography and ultrasound (Ross, 30-33). The technologists are responsible for acquiring the images, interprets such images and makes a report to be presented to the medical expert that requested such images.

The radiologists have knowledge in human anatomy, the needed patient examination techniques, and the safety of radiation, protection from radiation both for the patient and the technologist and the protocols for using the radiology equipment.
Proponents for radiology argue that the technology has been effective in that it’s the center of disease management as it encompasses a wide choice of equipment and different levels of techniques that are put at the disposal of hospitals that easily detect diseases and necessitate treatment. Moreover, through the use of radiology, the imaging provides detailed information concerning the patients structural and body related changes hence the radiologists can initiate an effective remedy. Those for it argue that it’s through radiology that early diagnosis is done a technology that was not there in the past. Without diagnosing then, treatment is next to impossible as the doctor can’t cure what he doesn’t know. Scientifically the early diagnosis of patients through CT and cancer detection has led to the saving of millions of lives something that was not possible I the past (“Importance of Radiology | Ontario Association of Radiologists,” N.p).
Those for radiology argue that the use of imaging and screening has revolutionized the field of medicine over the past 30 years. It’s through this technology that accuracy of diagnosing has been achieved through screening and imaging. The use of imaging has led to many benefits through the field of medicine. The patients and physicians have been effectively guided in the effective care treatment through the aid of imaging machines. Moreover, the use of therapy through radiation and screening has made the technology to be one of the best innovations as it turned many countless patients who were on the brink of death back to life. The use of CT has clearly reduced the cost of medicine in that diseases are detected on a timely basis with minimum utilization of money. In the past years, many women have died due to breast cancer as there was little technology on how to help them. Mammography has helped many women in that breast cancer are detected in time, and its growth stopped hence living a healthy life free of cancer.
The use of this technology is argued that it utilizes the safety and quality measures put in place to ensure that the application of radiological technology is done safely about the patient and the technologist’s safety in respect to exposure to radiation. Also, there are ethical standards put in place to ensure radiology safety and quality. The standards include the utilization of equipment according to the set standards. The administration of CT is through the specific dosage of 2.1 and 21.4 MSv. Moreover, those for it argue that it was safe in that the use of medical imaging in the hospitals is not required to involve the use of ionization radiation to minimize cumulative exposure. Moreover, ultrasonography and MR imaging is today used to replace radiation imaging in the determination of cardiovascular indications hence ensuring the safety of the patient (Watson, 2). The Mammography Quality Standards sets out the condition for the use of mammography and specifies all the personnel qualification. There is great debate on the safety of this method due to risk concerns raised. The dosage during examination by technologists are conducted on the ALARA pimples regarding the balancing of the dose and the resulting quality of the image. Radiation safety technology is always carried out outlining the safety measures that a technologist should apply.
Those against radiology have raised some controversial issues, and that say the technology has led to more harm than good especially to the patients. To begin with, there have been issues concerning the imaging and screening patients using the CT technology. The radiologists have been accused of false screening. In this regard, screening only occurs where the person being screened has symptoms for diagnosis. A radiologist who gives a false –positive finding exposes the individual to diagnosis hence making the person to be exposed to unnecessary radiation and yet he or she does not gain the benefit of radiology. During breast cancer screening, one can be exposed to unnecessary stress and suffering due to false positive results. As such one is exposed to additional imaging making the individual additional unnecessary costs. Moreover, there are the issues of over-diagnosis. In this case, the radiologists are accused of discovering other forms of cancer that are unnecessary and pose no lifelong threat to the patient’s life. The over diagnosis results into the over treatment of a patient hence exposing the patient to too much radiation. The overtreatment also results in additional costs that are no planned for. Another and the most controversial issues leading to the dislike and argument against radiology is its threat of radiation risk mostly to patients. Its argued that the use of imaging during screening employs the utilization of ionizing radiation both in CT and mammography that might take longer periods thus exposing the patients to radiation that have severe consequences ( Lam and Janie, N.p). Moreover, the cumulative dose for screening and imaging might result in lifetime exposure to cancer. Also, the cost of doing screening and imaging is another reason why many argue against this technology. The cost of accessing the services of the radiology are too much hence just a few people can have access today.
Moreover, it is argued that the technologists have a high risk of getting breast cancer during mammography due to the long periods of exposure. Research has shown that technologists from 1940s who were using the machines have incidences of breast cancer. Moreover, there is also the risk of thyroid cancer. Technologists that are exposed to X-ray machines more than 50 times in the prior years of the introduction of the nuclear medicine and the therapeutic procedures had tendencies of exposure effects. The technologists have been accused of making errors and discrepancies when using the equipment leading to radiation exposure to the patients (“U.S. Radiologic Technologists”, N.p). This exposure may lead to genetic consequences where the exposure to radiation affects one’s lineage. Indeed those against the use argue that the radiation protection has been underpinned by the set rules of justification and optimization. They argue that less effort is being made on justification by making sure the procedures are appropriate. The use of this technology is being accused of consuming a lot of resources, yet the justification of population dose and the individual dose is not determined according to the set standards. It’s argued that the procedure that uses ionization radiation has failed to quantify the level of risk that a patient is exposed to. The continued use of CT has led to increased exposure of the population to ionization radiation. Even children nowadays are exposed to CT, yet they are highly susceptible to radiation injury. There is a high probability of error as radiology interpretation of results is based on the radiologist examination opinion (Pinto, N.p). The interpretation can be flawed making the patient to be exposed to unnecessary ionization radiation. Moreover, there can be the inaccurate assessment of the patient basing on the radiological report. This might lead to the radiologists exposing the subsequent patient to excess dosage that is not required.
There are many reasons not to use this technology, but the benefits of radio technology far much outweigh the risk associated with it. It clear that the use of this technology has saved many lives and continued to save millions of lives. The use mammography enable the detection of breast cancer in its early stages making the administration of medicine more possible to the patient. Although those against this technology site safety reasons and the risk of exposure, there are codes of conduct and rules put in place by the various regulatory organization that ensures the safety of both the patient and the technologist. The rules range from the handling of the equipment, the room of operations and the general procedure for conducting radiology. The safety concerns raised by those against this technology have in the recent years been addressed. The today modern equipment ensures that the operators and the patients can hardly be exposed to excessive levels of radiation. The continued use of this technology will save millions of lives both today and in the future. Adequate resources should be put in pace especially on the use of CT as it has contributed to the easy detection of some illnesses in many hospitals worldwide. However, it is imperative that training programs be put in place to ensure that patients and the general population are aware of the safety measures to minimize exposure to radiation. The radiology department should have adequate knowledge through continued training to ensure that their patients are safe from ionization exposure errors (Donnelly and Dickerson, N.p).
Work cited
Donnelly, Lane F. and Julie M. Dickerson. “Improving Patient Safety in Radiology.” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol 194, no. 5, 2010, pp. 1183-1187. American Roentgen Ray Society, doi:10.2214/ajr.09.3875.
“Importance of Radiology | Ontario Association of Radiologists.” Our info.Ca, 2016, https://oarinfo.ca/radiologists/importance-radiology.
Pinto, Antonio. “Safety in Radiology | AHRQ Patient Safety Network.” Psnet.Ahrq.Gov, 2013, https://psnet.ahrq.gov/perspectives/perspective/148/safety-in-radiology. Lam, Diana and Janie Lee. “Imaging- Based Screening.” 2014, http://www.ajronline.org/doi/full/10.2214/AJR.14.13049.
Ross, L. Introduction to Radiologic Technology. 1st ed., El Toro, CA, Par Rad Pub. Co., 1991.
“U.S. Radiologic Technologists”. Division Of Cancer Epidemiology And Genetics – National Cancer Institute, 2016, https://dceg.cancer.gov/research/who-we-study/cohorts/us-radiologic-technologists.
Watson, Liana. “Patient Safety And Quality In Medical Imaging: The Radiologic Technologist’s Role.” Safety Reports Series, 2013, https://www.asrt.org/docs/default-source/publications/whitepapers/asrt13_patientsafetyqltywhitepaper.pdf?sfvrsn=6.