Say NO to the general on-site rule for CT

The proposal is impractical and unworkable.The recommendation ignores the role of highly qualified technical personnel and the communication currently existing between managing radiologist and technician.The proposal may in fact lead to scanning delays,confusion if the radiologist is unavailable during the hours proposed and could lead to a deterioration in patient care.It seems more appropriate to have a robust method of communication between radiologist and tech at all hours rather than a few hours a day.Mindful the most urgent scans are performed on the sickest patients out of normal business hours.

I wish to register my total oppostition to this proposal. This is such an imposition, it is totally impractical and unworkable in a rural setting. Where I work, there are two Radiologists and three hospitals where major surgery is performed, each has a CT scanner onsite. The need for urgent scans can occur at any time and sometimes I am on my own covering these three sites. I would like to invite the Minister to visit our sites at Taree/Forster to observe for herself firsthand the impracticalities of such a proposal.

Oppose, Oppose, Oppose !!!!!!!

I strongly support this petition as it is only way for a limited number of radiologists to fulfil the demand for radiologists in such a vast country.

Teleradiology is accepted worldwide as a method of delivering high quality imaging services. The onsite presence of a radiologist is not needed in order to monitor and deliver quality non contrast CT examinations to referring clinicians and their patients. Any proposed implementation of mandatory onsite attendance by radiologists will only lead to significantly reduced access to the public of affordable imaging and provide a commercial benefit to some larger providers who already charge large gap fees.

Ill conceived proposal . The decision makers need to spend a day in a Radiologist's office to realise that non contrast CT scans can be done as efficiently via teleradiology as with on site radiologist .

Requiring an onsite radiologist for non contrast CT defeats the purpose of teleradiology.

General onsite rule restricts the availability of services to the community

Gee what a surprise! governments making decisions completely out of touch with both the general public and the professional experts!

Unnecessary and unjustified change to Medicare and the practice of radiology in Australia. Evidence strongly against this change.

Totally backward step. Just another example of further restrictive measures detriment to patient care. Disappointed that ADAIA and RANCR agreed to the proposal.

Proposal has not been well thought through by the concerned proposing parties viz., RANZCR and ADIA and if it has been, please provide the benefit analysis to ensure there are no hidden agenda. Cases in point, GP (who also also have specialist qualification from their college) suspects a nasal bone, facial bone, subtle elbow, wrist, ankle and spine fracture (after low impact trauma), headache for investigation etc.; the 1st line of investigation is non contrast CT scan whether radiologists is in attendance at the scanner site or not. Has any of us not complied with these requests (including those who are the proponents of the change), whether they are on or off site being requested telephonically. The proposal will certainly have impact on patient management.

Totally ill conceived measure.

This is a detriment to patient care and access to essential imaging services.

This is an absurd suggestion and will reduce radiologist efficiency without conferring patient benefit. In fact because the radiologists time is restricted patients elsewhere will miss out on needed procedures.

The College has not consulted its members on this issue and may have a hidden agenda to support it. This would be a restrictive rule with no clear clinical evidence to back it . Patient care and medical indication should be the determining factors.

This is an unneccessary and restrictive rule. The need for CT should be based on medical indications and not on whether the radiologist is physically on site, but whether they are able to appropriately supervise via teleradiology and willing to take responsibility for the managemnet of the patient's imaging needs.

This ruling will only affect small businesses. The big radiology players will be little affected. Competition is both healthy and necessary in a modern democracy.

The professionalism and responsibility of radiographers has grown exponentially in 20 years. IT RISPACS and mobile phone sophistication has grown exponentially in 20 years. These radical changes have helped to spread the net of accessibility to affordable services to far more Australians at less cost in a more timely manner helping clinicians to make decisions faster and reducing costs to the system. A radiologist immediately accessible on FaceTime mobile does not need their DNA within 20m of a machine to operate safely. Access to super specialist radiologists and second opinions via tekeradiology improves safety and accuracy The number of bizarre time and place exceptions to the rules proposed leave it wide open to attack as self serving for certain groups to gain a commercial advantage and reduce competition under the guise of safety despite no hard evidence that it is compromised. Completion increases patient access and keeps costs down.

ADIA and RANZCR HAVE NOT CONSULTED THEIR MEMBERS ON THIS MATTER