Hospital error leads to CT scan radiation overdoses in 206 patients

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


How well do hospital medical technicians know their equipment? Not well enough in the case of some health care workers at Cedars–Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, where 206 x-ray computed tomography (CT) scan patients were given eight times the normal dose of radiation during brain scans over an 18-month period. The Los Angeles Times reports today that the cause of the overdoses has been traced back to a mistake the hospital made resetting a CT scanner.

The problem began in February 2008 when the hospital began using a new protocol for CT brain perfusion scans, which expose the brain to radiation in an attempt to help doctors analyze disruptions in the flow of blood to brain tissue and diagnose strokes. This change involved resetting the machine to override the preprogrammed instructions that came with the scanner when it was installed, the Times reports.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"There was a misunderstanding about an embedded default setting applied by the machine," according a written statement issued by the hospital. "As a result, the use of this protocol resulted in a higher than expected amount of radiation." Eight times higher, to be precise.

The error went unnoticed until this August, when a stroke patient informed the hospital that he had begun losing his hair after a scan.

Concerned that this error might not be limited to Cedars–Sinai, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week issued an alert to CT facilities, radiologists, neurologists and several other types of health care professionals to warn them of possible "widespread problems with CT quality assurance programs," meaning the problem might not be isolated to Cedars–Sinai's equipment or this particular imaging procedure. The alert concluded, however, "While unnecessary radiation exposure should be avoided, a medically needed CT scan has benefits that outweigh the radiation risks."

General Electric, the manufacturer of the scanner, released its own statement Monday saying there were "no malfunctions or defects" of the machine, the Times reports.

©Mikael Häggström via Wikimedia Commons

Larry Greenemeier is the associate editor of technology for Scientific American, covering a variety of tech-related topics, including biotech, computers, military tech, nanotech and robots.

More by Larry Greenemeier

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe