Doctor’s Passport

Find your next topic

Explore the current textbook

Available drafts · Clinical review pending
Membership
Educational draft · awaiting clinical reviewUse Rapid for revision, not patient-care decisions. Check current national and local guidance and the BNF or BNFC before acting.
Rapid

Ionising radiation and dose principles

Essential points for quick revision.

Saved on this device
!
Do not delay essential imaging

Radiation detriment is balanced against the immediate harm of missing a life-threatening diagnosis.

Action: Escalate the case, justify the examination, tailor the protocol and proceed promptly when net emergency benefit is clear.

Synopsis

Explain stochastic and tissue effects, distinguish justification from optimisation, and use diagnostic reference levels correctly without treating them as individual dose limits.

  • Justification decides whether an individual medical exposure has sufficient net benefit before it is authorised.
  • Optimisation individualises the authorised examination to obtain diagnostic information at the lowest practicable dose.
  • Diagnostic reference levels are population-based review tools for typical examinations, not individual patient dose limits.

Key red flags

Repeating an exposure because prior images or reports were not checked is an avoidable safety failure.

Children, pregnancy, interventional procedures and repeated high-dose studies require explicit attention during optimisation.

A protocol substantially above its diagnostic reference level should trigger local investigation rather than automatic blame of one case.

Unintended exposure

Wrong patient, wrong anatomy, major protocol error, equipment failure or other significant deviation requires immediate local safety action.

Reasoning priorities

01
Exposure history

Identify prior relevant examinations and cumulative procedural context.

Previous exposure is not an absolute contraindication but may reveal an existing answer or support a different technique.

Worked reasoning

Worked exampleRepeat CT request

A recent CT may already answer the proposed repeat examination.

  1. Context: identify the new clinical question, interval change and management decision expected from another exposure.
  2. Reasoning: retrieve the previous images and report, and consider whether review, comparison or a non-ionising test suffices.
  3. Outcome: the practitioner justifies only if added information creates net benefit, then the operator tailors the protocol.
  4. Verification: record the authorisation, confirm diagnostic image quality and review local dose metrics after acquisition.
Routine exposureJustify and optimise

An ionising examination is proposed for a defined clinical problem.

Open full textbook Answer 2 questions
Sources and review status3 sources · checked 13 Sept 2026 · clinical review pending
Sources

Sources and review status

National guidance is shown before implementation-dependent detail. Apply principles in context and verify current guidance when a decision affects care. Source check completed 13 Sept 2026; clinical approval remains outstanding.

Authoring stateRapid draftClinical stateAwaiting reviewJurisdictionUnited Kingdom