Final-year medical students’ perspective: a survey on the use of computed tomography in sepsis

Insights into Imaging

Table 3 Results for indications for repeat CT scans and benefits of CT

		Does not apply		Rather does not apply		Somewhat applies		Fully applies		Total
		n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n
If the initial CT fails to detect a focus, …	and the patient is clinically unaltered, I would opt for a repeat CT scan after 3 days.	36	33	40	36	26	24	8	7	110
If the initial CT fails to detect a focus, …	I would opt for a repeat CT scan in case of clinical deterioration.	0	0	10	9	67	60	34	31	111
I see the greatest benefit of CT…	in confirming the suspected diagnosis.	6	5	13	12	72	64	21	19	112
	in the modification of anti-infectious therapy.	45	40	41	37	21	19	5	4	112
	in planning interventions (e.g., drainage, puncture) and/or surgeries.	0	0	2	2	44	39	67	59	113
	in rule-out diagnosis.	11	10	31	28	57	51	13	12	112

CT Computed tomography
Regarding indications for CT, 83% (n = 93/112) of the participants saw the advantage of CT in the confirmation of a suspected septic focus (4) Fully applies and (3) Rather does apply taken together). The ability to plan interventions and/or surgeries for patients with sepsis was selected as a benefit of CT by 98% (n = 111/113; (4) Fully applies and (3) Somewhat applies taken together). Seventy-seven percent (n = 86/112) did not regard possible adjustment of anti-infectious therapy with information gathered by a CT scan as a benefit of CT. Sixty-nine percent (n = 76/110) rejected the statement “If the patient is clinically unaltered, I would opt for a repeat CT scan after three days” ((1) Does not apply and (2) Does rather not apply taken together). Ninety-one percent (n = 101/111) of participants agreed with the statement “I opt for a repeat CT scan in case of clinical deterioration” for further management after an inconclusive initial CT scan ((4) Fully applies and (3) Rather does apply taken together)