Slashdot Mirror
CT Scan "Reset Error" Gives 206 Patients Radiation Overdose
jeffb (2.718) writes "As the LA Times reports, 206 patients receiving CT scans at Cedar Sinai hospital received up to eight times the X-ray exposure doctors intended. (The FDA alert gives details about the doses involved.) A misunderstanding over an 'embedded default setting' appears to have led to the error, which occurred when the hospital 'began using a new protocol for a specialized type of scan used to diagnose strokes. Doctors believed it would provide them more useful data to analyze disruptions in the flow of blood to brain tissue.' Human-computer interaction classes from the late 1980s onward have pounded home the lesson of the Therac-25, the usability issues of which led to multiple deaths. Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable?"
"chemo" refers to chemotherapy, where the patient is poisoned in the hopes that the poison will kill the cancer faster than it kills the patient. It is a different form of therapy than radiation therapy, in which the patient is subjected to intense doses of radiation in the hopes that the radiation will kill the cancer faster than it kills the patient. Often, people with cancer will receive both, one after the other, but they aren't the same thing.
Typical normal CT scan dose: 1-2 rem
Faulty CT scan overdose: 8-16 rem
1950s shoe-salesman's fluoroscope: 10 rem
Typical normal Therac-25 dose: 200 rem
Malfunctioning Therac-25 dose: 15-20,000 rem
Come on, seriously people. Yes, this is a mistake that needs to be fixed, but millions of kids in the '50s got their feet nuked with this much radiation and lived to become healthy normal adults with normal feet.
The Therac-25 cooked straight through people, leaving a hole of rotting meat behind. This is not even remotely in the same league.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/107/1/113.full.pdf
http://www.ccnr.org/fatal_dose.html
http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm
Thank god you're not responsible for the design of complex, life-critical systems, like those commonly found on passenger jets, in nuclear power plants, in high-speed rail systems, etc. All of those systems incorporate fail-safe measures so that if something were to go wrong (like an operator losing control) the system would fallback on a safe state.
Sure, in an ideal world, every operator of a life-critical system would have total understanding of that system, know the value of every system setting at all times, never forget, never be tired, and have an IQ of 200. In the real world, operators are often overworked, susceptible to distractions, minimally qualified, and sometimes under-trained or even improperly trained. Even the most experienced and well-trained veteran airline pilots can lose focus and make deadly mistakes (which is why Cockpit Resource Management has been a major area of research in aviation psychology). You can base your system design on ideal conditions, or you can base it off of real-world conditions; either way, it's going to be operating in the later.
You also seem to be missing the main purpose of mechanization and automation, which is to simplify a task or make it easier to perform. When you buy a cappuccino machine, you don't want to understand the details of how it operates or be asked for input every step of the process to make a cup of coffee. Eliminating/minimizing the human factor in a particular process is another major advantage of automation. It provides more consistent results and helps to minimize human error. All of this helps to reduce the learning curve and skill level required to perform a task, which confers economic benefits. However, not every well-designed system can necessarily be operated by unskilled personnel—nor would you want a high school drop out to be operating most life-critical systems. Nonetheless, you still want mechanization/automation to simplify the task in these cases. That's because some tasks are so inherently complex and mentally demanding that, without automation, it simply can't be performed.
Flying a passenger jet is a perfect example of this. Even with all the sophisticated automation (including autopilot) on a modern airliner, it still takes a full cockpit crew (not to mention support personnel on the ground) to safely fly & land the plane. With all of the complex duties that airline pilots need to perform simultaneously, they don't have the time to monitor the status of every system component or manually adjust every actuator on the plane to control its flight surfaces. It may take 50 different mechanical actions to retract the landing gear on a plane, but why clutter the cockpit interface with 50 items when a single switch or button will do? Likewise, doctors and nurses are already required to undergo extensive medical training; they don't need to have to learn how to mechanically calibrate a CO2 laser or calculate the spectrum of an X-ray machine based on the anode material of its emitter and the voltage passed through it. Medical personnel should mainly be trained in medicine and only need to learn how to operate a particular medical device, not how to troubleshoot it or read its blueprints.
A simple and streamlined interface is much less distracting and more intuitive than a field of buttons and dials for a thousand different minute settings and system readings. Even with the utmost simplification, most industrial machinery and complex systems are still overwhelmingly difficult to operate by an untrained person. It's never just a single "magic button" for the operator to press. A nuclear power plant might take hundreds of different readings from multiple sensors and summarize it with a single status message or indicator light on a controller's console, but that message/light would likely be sitting next to a dozen other status indicators that each take hundreds of other readings. And although a complex process like lowering the reactor temperature might be simplified down to a single "magic button," the c
Woops, silly me, repeating what I learned in upper-division Transportation Engineering lecture from professors with decades of experience in the field of road design. Guess I should have checked Wikipedia first, because it never lies!
Got a cite for your critique?
It's true that the majority of people who die in alcohol-related crashes have a BAC of .08 or higher (67% according to this site). However, lower down, we see that 37% of single-car crashes involve a BAC of .08 or higher, which is higher than the 22% average rate. Since my point was about the comparative risks to the drunk driver and the sober driver in an accident, single-car crashes are irrelevant. That takes out 67% of the drunk driving crashes overall, and similarly lowers the fatality numbers considerably.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?