Table 3. Survey Results.
| Question Items | Overall (n = 579) | Department | Job Title | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radiologists (n = 221) | Emergency Physicians (n = 196) | Surgeons (n = 162) | Attendings (n = 203) | Trainees (n = 376) | ||
| Q1. Willingness to immediately change | ||||||
| Yes (%) | 158 (27.3) | 62 (28.1) | 45 (23) | 51 (32) | 73 (36.0) | 85 (22.6) |
| Partly (%) | 375 (64.8) | 143 (64.7) | 134 (68) | 98 (61) | 118 (58.1) | 257 (68.4) |
| No (%) | 46 (7.9) | 16 (7.2) | 17 (9) | 13 (8) | 12 (5.9) | 34 (9.0) |
| Q2. Reasons for reluctance to change* | ||||||
| Low image quality (%) | 248 (58.9) | 87 (55) | 100 (66) | 61 (55) | 69 (53) | 179 (61.5) |
| Impaired diagnostic performance (%) | 213 (50.6) | 81 (51) | 67 (44) | 65 (59) | 63 (49) | 150 (51.5) |
| Insufficient experience in 2-mSv CT (%) | 78 (18.5) | 37 (24) | 21 (14) | 20 (18) | 32 (25) | 46 (15.8) |
| Lack of published evidence justifying use of 2-mSv CT (%) | 71 (16.9) | 29 (18) | 20 (13) | 22 (20) | 23 (18) | 48 (16.5) |
| Worrisome clinical outcomes | 48 (11.4) | 14 (9) | 20 (13) | 14 (13) | 16 (12) | 32 (11.0) |
| Q3. Willingness to change in future* | ||||||
| Yes (%) | 276 (65.6) | 112 (70) | 103 (68) | 61 (55) | 99 (76) | 177 (60.8) |
| Partly (%) | 108 (25.7) | 39 (25) | 34 (23) | 35 (32) | 26 (20) | 82 (28.2) |
| No (%) | 37 (8.8) | 8 (5) | 14 (9) | 15 (14) | 5 (4) | 32 (11.0) |
| Q4. Acceptance of 2-mSv CT | ||||||
| Yes (%) | 396 (68.4) | 178 (80.5) | 124 (63) | 94 (58) | 156 (76.8) | 240 (63.8) |
| Partly (%) | 166 (28.7) | 41 (18.6) | 67 (34) | 58 (36) | 43 (21.2) | 123 (32.7) |
| No (%) | 17 (2.9) | 2 (0.9) | 5 (3) | 10 (6) | 4 (2.0) | 13 (3.5) |
| Q5. Maintaining dedicated appendix CT protocol in hospital information system | ||||||
| Yes (%) | 298 (51.5) | 108 (48.9) | 99 (51) | 91 (56) | 122 (60.1) | 176 (46.8) |
| Partly (%) | 135 (23.3) | 62 (28.1) | 45 (23) | 28 (17) | 45 (22.2) | 90 (23.9) |
| No (%) | 146 (25.2) | 51 (23.1) | 52 (27) | 43 (27) | 36 (17.7) | 110 (29.3) |
| Q6. Timeliness and accuracy of CT reports | ||||||
| Yes (%) | 471 (81.3) | 208 (94.1) | 147 (75) | 116 (72) | 181 (89.2) | 290 (77.1) |
| Partly (%) | 88 (15.2) | 13 (5.9) | 39 (20) | 36 (22) | 16 (7.9) | 72 (19.1) |
| No (%) | 20 (3.5) | 0 (0.0) | 10 (5) | 10 (6) | 6 (3.0) | 14 (3.7) |
| Q7. Timeliness and accuracy of 2-mSv CT reports | ||||||
| Yes (%) | 468 (80.8) | 206 (93.2) | 156 (80) | 106 (65) | 182 (89.7) | 286 (76.1) |
| Partly (%) | 98 (16.9) | 15 (6.8) | 31 (16) | 52 (32) | 18 (8.9) | 80 (21.3) |
| No (%) | 13 (2.2) | 0 (0.0) | 9 (5) | 4 (3) | 3 (1.5) | 10 (2.7) |
| Q8. In comparison to natural background radiation† | ||||||
| 0.004-fold (%) | 29 (5.0) | 8 (3.6) | 7 (4) | 14 (9) | 7 (3.4) | 22 (5.9) |
| 0.04-fold (%) | 72 (12.4) | 17 (7.7) | 26 (13) | 29 (18) | 16 (7.9) | 56 (14.9) |
| 0.4-fold (%) | 77 (13.3) | 28 (12.7) | 22 (11) | 27 (17) | 26 (12.8) | 51 (13.6) |
| 4-fold‡ (%) | 200 (34.5) | 100 (45.2) | 63 (32) | 37 (23) | 84 (41.4) | 116 (30.9) |
| 40-fold (%) | 124 (21.4) | 48 (21.7) | 43 (22) | 33 (20) | 46 (22.7) | 78 (20.7) |
| 400-fold (%) | 77 (13.3) | 20 (9.0) | 35 (18) | 22 (14) | 24 (11.8) | 53 (14.1) |
| Q9. Evidence level of carcinogenic risk† | ||||||
| Yes (%) | 181 (31.3) | 67 (30.3) | 83 (42) | 31 (19) | 71 (35.0) | 110 (29.3) |
| Partly (%) | 173 (29.9) | 56 (25.3) | 59 (30) | 58 (36) | 61 (30.0) | 112 (29.8) |
| No (%) | 225 (38.9) | 98 (44.3) | 54 (28) | 73 (45) | 71 (35.0) | 154 (41.0) |
Data are number of participants (and percentages). Shade of each cell indicates percentage categorized as follows: 0–20%, 21–40%, 41–60%, 61–80%, or 81–100%. Each percentage is that of given response out of all participants of that category. Darker shade represents higher percentage. Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding. For questions regarding willingness or acceptance, “yes” indicated ‘completely and consistently’ while “partly” indicated ‘not consistently but selectively (e.g., during working hours)’. For Q2, participant could choose one or more answers. *These questions were asked to only 421 participants who responded as “partly” or “no” to Q1, †Estimation of carcinogenic risk of conventional-dose CT radiation, ‡Considered as accurate estimate.