Mr Cameron Younger
School of Health Sciences (Medical Radiation Science)
- Phone:(02) 4921 6785
- Bachelor of Medical Radiation Science (Honours), University of Newcastle
- Diploma of Applied Science (Med Radiation Science), University of Newcastle
Fields of Research
|119999||Medical and Health Sciences not elsewhere classified||100|
|Title||Organisation / Department|
|Lecturer||University of Newcastle
School of Health Sciences
|Dates||Title||Organisation / Department|
|1/01/1995 - 1/01/2011||Clinical Educator||North Coast Area Health Service / Hunter New England Area Health Service
For publications that are currently unpublished or in-press, details are shown in italics.
Journal article (4 outputs)
Younger CWE, Wagner MJ, Douglas C, Warren-Forward H, 'Describing ionising radiation risk in the clinical setting: A systematic review', Radiography, 25 83-90 (2019)
© 2018 Introduction: Meaningfully explaining the risk of an ionising radiation examination is a challenging undertaking. Patients must contextualise the risk against the expected ... [more]
© 2018 Introduction: Meaningfully explaining the risk of an ionising radiation examination is a challenging undertaking. Patients must contextualise the risk against the expected benefit of the imaging examination, often in a situation of heightened emotion. This systematic review seeks to explore the literature to identify what techniques are advocated for disclosing the risk to patients of ionising radiation from clinical medical imaging examinations. Methods: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature was undertaken. Electronic databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed, full-text articles published in English from 1990. Original articles discussing techniques for disclosing ionising radiation risks in the clinical setting were included. The reference lists of the included articles were searched for unpublished articles and reports of use. Results: Sixteen papers out of 5959 unique titles met the inclusion criteria. The data was extracted independently by two researchers and assessed for quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Conclusion: The two most commonly cited techniques for disclosing ionising radiation risk is to compare risk to the risk of common life events, and to describe risk as an additive risk to the baseline risk of cancer. The most commonly cited communication strategy was a graphical representation of the data, but simple language is also advocated. The use of a pictograph represents a technique which satisfied the advocated techniques of most articles.
Younger CWE, Douglas C, Warren-Forward H, 'Ionising radiation risk disclosure: When should radiographers assume a duty to inform?', Radiography, 24 146-150 (2018) [C1]
© 2017 The College of Radiographers Introduction: Autonomy is a fundamental patient right for ethical practice, and informed consent is the mechanism by which health care professi... [more]
© 2017 The College of Radiographers Introduction: Autonomy is a fundamental patient right for ethical practice, and informed consent is the mechanism by which health care professionals ensure this right has been respected. The ethical notion of informed consent has evolved alongside legal developments. Under Australian law, a provider who fails to disclose risk may be found to be in breach of a duty of disclosure, potentially facing legal consequences if the patient experiences harm that is attributable to an undisclosed risk. These consequences may include the common law tort of negligence. Ionising radiation, in the form of a medical imaging examination, has the potential to cause harm. However, stochastic effects cannot be attributable to a specific ionising radiation event. What then is the role of the Australian medical imaging service provider in disclosing ionising radiation risk? Methods: The ethical and legal principles of informed consent, and the duty of information provision to the patient are investigated. These general principles are then applied to the specific and unusual case of ionising radiation, and what responsibilities apply to the medical imaging provider. Finally, the legal, professional and ethical duties of the radiographer to disclose information to their patients are investigated. Results: Australian law is unclear as to whether a radiographer has a common law responsibility to disclose radiation risk. There is ambiguity as to whether stochastic ionising radiation risk could be considered a legal disclosure responsibility. Conclusion: While it is unlikely that not disclosing risk will have medicolegal consequences, doing so represents sound ethical practice.
Younger CWE, Douglas C, Warren-Forward H, 'Medical imaging and informed consent ¿ Can radiographers and patients agree upon a realistic best practice?', Radiography, 24 204-210 (2018) [C1]
© 2018 The College of Radiographers Introduction: For radiographers, gaining informed consent with our patients represents a challenging undertaking. Reconciling the need to gain ... [more]
© 2018 The College of Radiographers Introduction: For radiographers, gaining informed consent with our patients represents a challenging undertaking. Reconciling the need to gain meaningful consent with time pressures represents one challenge, as does differing expectations of how risk communication should be undertaken. Different methods and thresholds of risk disclosure are considered, with the aim of finding a realistic best practice. Methods: A cross-sectional study of radiographers and members of the public was undertaken. Participants were asked their preferences for how they would like to receive ionising radiation risk information. This included the health care professional(s) most suited to provide the information, the media through which the information was delivered, and the technique for delivering the information. In addition, participants were asked to consider hypothetical scenarios in which they were a patient receiving an ionising radiation examination, and to give the threshold of ionising radiation cancer risk which they would consider material. These scenarios considered variations in the cancer-onset time, and the accuracy of the test. Results: One hundred and twenty-one (121) radiographer participants and one hundred and seventy two (172) members of the public met the inclusion criteria and completed the survey. There was strong agreement in the most appropriate media, and person, to disclose risk, as well as what represents a significant risk. There was considerable agreement in risk delivery technique. However, some of the agreed-upon strategies may be challenging to achieve in clinical practice. Conclusion: Radiographers and patients fundamentally agree upon risk communication strategies, but implementing some strategies may prove clinically challenging.
|2002||Smith TK, Younger C, 'Accident and Emergency Radiological Interpretation Using the Radiographer Opinion Form', The Radiographer, 49 27-31 (2002) [C1]|
|Show 1 more journal article|
Mr Cameron Younger
School of Health Sciences
Faculty of Health and Medicine
Medical Radiation Science
|Phone||(02) 4921 6785|
|Fax||(02) 4921 3415|
Callaghan, NSW 2308