Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

ma baker — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:14:44 GMT

There are several issues here. Firstly despite what any of you may think or do in your work place, you are not allowed to x-ray people. Even if you are vets who are 'qualified regarding the use of x-rays'. To do this you need to be a radiographer who has completed an appropriate degree in radiography. Secondly, vet's practices are not licenced to administer ionising radiation to people. Thirdly anyone x-raying people has to comply with the IR(MER) regulations and the IRR regulations, whereas the former do not apply to veterinary practice. This is where the article is incorrect - it should mention that veterinary use of ionising radiation does not come under the IR(ME)R regs.

Lastly in order to x-ray a person a request has to be made by an appropriately qualified referrer, ie a doctor or other suitably qualified medical professional. This does not include vets.

It is frankly disappointing to see the number of responses here from vets who don't seem to think there is anything wrong with x-raying a person. It is even more worrying that they all have access to x-ray machines. If you cannot see any difference between x-raying a person and x-raying, say, a dog, then please do the following. Look in your favourite journal and see how many articles there are regarding radiation protection of the patient in veterinary medicine. How many vets are interested in reducing the radiation dose to their patients? Now do the same for human radiography. You will see that the difference in culture is immense.

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

bevs2251 — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:50:33 GMT

Australia following the UK with +++ red tape/regs etc. Our radiographic equipment has to be checked by EPA regularly. Only vets supposed to take views but if one is holding the animal (even anaesthetised), one would need a third hand to press the button !

I have been radiographing my hands (osteoarthritis) every couple years (& feet a couple of times when I thought I broke a toe) for years !

First diagnosed after a cat bite over 2nd phalanx first finger L hand almost 20 years ago. When a radiograph of my finger was taken at RPA hospital, Sydney, NSW, the staff didn't even provide me with a thyroid collar while they all ran behind a screen !! So much for OH&S !!

Sounds petty to dob someone in for taking a radiograph of themselves.

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

Nhombokisheni — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:38:41 GMT

Dexter, you've hit the nail on the head.....every practice in this country shouldn't be registered to use x-rays. FULLSTOP. Clearly no-one can meet ALL the specified conditions anyway..so the only way to satisfy them conditions is to stop using x-rays right. Only prob is there is no real alternative and so really it comes down to common sense ..... minimizing unintended exposure as far as is possible. I strongly feel in this case the failure to differentiate between "intended and un-intended" exposure actually led to the prosecution. Vets are qualified regarding the use of x-rays and so it would appear common sense is now fast becoming an "endangered" notion.

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

Dexter Smith — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:15:37 GMT

Hands up anyone who hasn't done this!! Perhaps I'm too near retirement as well, but I do find the endless procession of people with clipboards ticking boxes (on missions that, to my amusement, they continually assure me are not box ticking exercises) a little tedious. Especially when many, it would appear, lack the knowledge, experience or even the common sense to tell me how to do my job! For such a person, having brought a prosecution, to come out with the statement that "Any vet practice using ionising radiation for medical exposures must ensure that the X-ray equipment is properly maintained and that the requirements of the Ionising Radiations Regulations are complied with. The view of HSE and the Department of Health is that it is highly unlikely that all these conditions can be met by a veterinary practice." beggars belief in that those very conditions in the statement all need to be met before the practice could have and use an Xray machine in the first place!

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

Julie Turner — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:24:39 GMT

When I told my own medical human GP, she was incredulous and asked why we couldn't X-ray ourselves.

To the person who asked why the person didn't delete her X-ray - you can't from digital systems, unlike the more common X-ray film technique (where more exposures may be needed to get the right one) of throwing in the bin after viewing. Hmm.

One wonders at this world and it brings to mind the police finding it much more efficient to prosecute for minor but recordable traffic offences than root out the more complicated and dangerous ones.

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

Nhombokisheni — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 12:59:40 GMT

"The view of HSE and the Department of Health is that it is highly unlikely that all these conditions can be met by a veterinary practice"....obviously the Radiation Protection Supervisor aka Diector has himself managed to meet all the conditions for him to take others to task. Secondly that rule applies where "unintended exposure" is the premise...i.e to protect staff and clients not being x-rayed. In this case exposure was intended and consented to. Question is "did she over expose?" What a shame when your own colleague cannot even sort issues with you inhouse. Vets are becoming an endangered species lol....

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

grumpyoldman — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:18:11 GMT

You can understand the temptation ,on one wants to hang around A&E for 3-4 hours with the drunks, junkies, domestic punch ups, teenage over doser's and ladies of the night. Can't help thinking there are some underlying machiavellian politics underway in that practice, someone in a hurry to see the back of someone else ?.

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

mariette asselbergs — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 09:59:27 GMT

In one of the presentations on last year's BSAVA it was recommended to use a wooden spoon to flatten the abdomen when taking lateral x rays for suspected fb. This helps a lot to identify linear fbs and intussusceptions. I have done that regularly, wearing appropriate protective apron and dosimeter. Is this now "illegal" or dodgy practice???

Mariette

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

Sarah Green — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 09:08:50 GMT

Just dropping in to this chat now the theme that comes across in the comments is that everyone is depressed and waiting to retire. What a sad profession we are. Can't we fight back a bit?

Of course if she had deleted the xray afterwards.......

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

Anthony Holmes — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 05:25:40 GMT

I trust that some personal experience of the local A&E Department was arranged for the Radiation Protection Supervisor following the court case.

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 20:17:53 GMT

That's not THE x-ray, just a random x-ray of a foot!

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

Jorunn Blackmore — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:44:57 GMT

Life as a vet is obviously becoming too much of a hassle! Chris B.

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

arken — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:26:46 GMT

Good point Wm Cashman!

The article doesn't actually say, and only one view is provided but was her foot broken?? Dear editor, we need further views to be able to (not) diagnose it for ourselves! :-)

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

Wm Cashman — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:57:29 GMT

How much more radiation was the vet exposed to than she would have been in an A & E? Would she have had to wear the dosimeter as a patient in the A & E?

While not advocating that vets diagnose or treat humans, they are better qualified than many of the non-vets who want (and are allowed) treat animals as if they were vets.

RE: Vet in court over X-ray of employee’s foot

Julie Turner — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:46:39 GMT

I agree: good exposure.

I agree: life is getting too regulated and tied up with red tape.

I agree: we have to stick to the regulations, unfortunately so,I think at times. I have come to the opinion that many practices are near collapsing in complying with so much red tape and white paper and email, and others are nervously and quietly carrying on older practices whilst some get away with murder. Whilst I never have condoned the practice of routinely restraining conscious animals for xray, I cannot see the harm of xraying oneself with full knowledge of risks (and a dose meter!). Of course, this is illegal and so one can no longer do this, even if, as is so often the veterinary case, it happened at work and the local a&e wait is 3 hours and the service stretched.

Our job was pretty tough before the extra regulation came along, no wonder so many of us succumb to stress-related illness - see 'Depression: The Curse Of The Strong'. Quite a proportion of vets are unhappy and waiting for retirement and scared of litigation and RCVS summonses.

Does anyone know why our standards are not as good as the nhs regarding X-ray standards?

Veterinary physician do not treat thyself is the motto nowadays.

There but for the grace of Universe go many vets and nurses trying to steer between Scylla and Charybdis.