Patients in remote areas should not be denied CT, a life-saving service that does not require a doctor in the same building. CT often determines whether or not transfer is needed.
D
Dr Anil Utturkar
9 years ago
This is not a well thought out proposal. Please keep patient's interest first and reverse the decision.
R
Ralph jabbour
9 years ago
No onsite rule for CT
A
Anonymous
9 years ago
This might delay urgent non contrast CT examination and can lead to delayed treatment and probably more complications.
C
CARL BLECHER
9 years ago
A MARKEDLY RETROGRADE STEP WHICH WILL SEVERELY RESTRICT PATIENT ACCESS TO CT SCANS AND INCREASE COSTS
P
Peter Stein
9 years ago
Please support Specialist Radiologists to keep high quality Medical Imaging accessible to the wider community
A
Alan Sacks FRANZCR
9 years ago
The proposed amendment is not related to quality and would be a retrograde step to the tremendous advantages of digital images that have revolutionised imaging and speed of service. This would disadvantage patients and their managing clinicians.
R
Robert Stowasser
9 years ago
The proposed changes will have a significant detrimental impact on patients currently serviced by sites that do not meet the proposed new criteria. I doubt there is evidence to support the claim that quality suffers at sites that are remotely reported. It makes little sense to curb remotely reported services at a time when broadband services are progressively improving with the NBN roll out. Image quality is now consistent, irrespective of the site of origin. I am unsure of the true motivations behind this initiative but I doubt that quality is the driving force.
M
Mark Holland FRANZCR
9 years ago
With todays teleradiology, offsite radiology including ultrasound and CT is safe with real time evaluation of images online and over the telephone
M
Mark Holland FRANZCR
9 years ago
With todays teleradiology, offsite radiology including ultrasound and CT is safe with real time evaluation of images online and over the telephone
M
Marcus Loff
9 years ago
Featured
If instituted, this will seriously compromise patient welfare.
The inherent delays in procuring imaging for potentially serious pathology is a retrograde step and while the rest of the world is becoming more and more reliant on high quality imaging as soon as possible, this will be a step back and a potentially dangerous obstruction to early treatment.
A
Assoc Prof John de Campo
9 years ago
The proposal undermines Medicare, is anticompetitive and is not evedence based.
A
Adelaine Wong
9 years ago
To Whom it May Concern,
If this policy is passed it will be detrimental to the health care of many Australians, the Australians who need equal care the most and who already have limited accessibility to health care. If this policy is passed, radiology centers will close, most in rural sites where it is difficult to recruit and retain radiologists. Patients will have to travel far, this will increase time away from work, personal expenses to travel and time away from family and their home base. Also, needing to travel to other site for their imaging may delay the diagnosis of life threatening conditions. Not to mention patients traveling away from a center where they can receive care is also putting the patient at risk. This is a big step backwards. The world is moving toward telehealth and teleradiology BECAUSE it improves accessibility and care for patients.
Adelaine Wong
A
Anonymous
9 years ago
If this rule is instituted, my family time will be severely cut down. I don't see them enough as it is and this will be the nail in the coffin. We have excellent teleradiology in Australia and ability to access radiologists offline via phone to ensure continued high standards of operation across Australia without the necessity for on site radiologist attendance for non-contrast CT services. It will increase costs to the already cash-strapped Australian public, particularly those who are in financial hardship.
Patients in remote areas should not be denied CT, a life-saving service that does not require a doctor in the same building. CT often determines whether or not transfer is needed.
This is not a well thought out proposal. Please keep patient's interest first and reverse the decision.
No onsite rule for CT
This might delay urgent non contrast CT examination and can lead to delayed treatment and probably more complications.
A MARKEDLY RETROGRADE STEP WHICH WILL SEVERELY RESTRICT PATIENT ACCESS TO CT SCANS AND INCREASE COSTS
Please support Specialist Radiologists to keep high quality Medical Imaging accessible to the wider community
The proposed amendment is not related to quality and would be a retrograde step to the tremendous advantages of digital images that have revolutionised imaging and speed of service. This would disadvantage patients and their managing clinicians.
The proposed changes will have a significant detrimental impact on patients currently serviced by sites that do not meet the proposed new criteria. I doubt there is evidence to support the claim that quality suffers at sites that are remotely reported. It makes little sense to curb remotely reported services at a time when broadband services are progressively improving with the NBN roll out. Image quality is now consistent, irrespective of the site of origin. I am unsure of the true motivations behind this initiative but I doubt that quality is the driving force.
With todays teleradiology, offsite radiology including ultrasound and CT is safe with real time evaluation of images online and over the telephone
With todays teleradiology, offsite radiology including ultrasound and CT is safe with real time evaluation of images online and over the telephone
If instituted, this will seriously compromise patient welfare. The inherent delays in procuring imaging for potentially serious pathology is a retrograde step and while the rest of the world is becoming more and more reliant on high quality imaging as soon as possible, this will be a step back and a potentially dangerous obstruction to early treatment.
The proposal undermines Medicare, is anticompetitive and is not evedence based.
To Whom it May Concern, If this policy is passed it will be detrimental to the health care of many Australians, the Australians who need equal care the most and who already have limited accessibility to health care. If this policy is passed, radiology centers will close, most in rural sites where it is difficult to recruit and retain radiologists. Patients will have to travel far, this will increase time away from work, personal expenses to travel and time away from family and their home base. Also, needing to travel to other site for their imaging may delay the diagnosis of life threatening conditions. Not to mention patients traveling away from a center where they can receive care is also putting the patient at risk. This is a big step backwards. The world is moving toward telehealth and teleradiology BECAUSE it improves accessibility and care for patients. Adelaine Wong
If this rule is instituted, my family time will be severely cut down. I don't see them enough as it is and this will be the nail in the coffin. We have excellent teleradiology in Australia and ability to access radiologists offline via phone to ensure continued high standards of operation across Australia without the necessity for on site radiologist attendance for non-contrast CT services. It will increase costs to the already cash-strapped Australian public, particularly those who are in financial hardship.