“For the longest time, there weren't significant concerns about anesthesia or its complications,” he said. “Because we largely excluded emergent and trauma cases, ICU patients and post-surgical patients at those times, we weren't really doing anything to our patients other than imaging them. We developed a sense that people simply couldn't get hurt from MR imaging and felt we didn't need support infrastructure, or ACLS-credentialed people,” he told HCB news. “In ways small and large, we have failed to prepare for risks even though MR has grown increasingly stronger, and our patients have increased in acuity and the degree of intervention that we subject them to.”

He adds that while it is not yet known if MR played any role in the tragedy, providers should still take note and work to ensure patient care and scan efficiency are safely planned out long in advance, with protocols and resources in place for any type of emergency situation.


“What are your current most precarious patients that will be accepted for MR? If these same patients were to undergo an examination anywhere else in the hospital, what would your minimum expectations for their care be? Are the elements of care that you'd expect to be minimum to this patient's care elsewhere, in MR? Do you have trained and qualified individuals responsible for overseeing processes for emergent patient care in the MR suite? This event should focus our minds to the question of 'could something similar happen here?'”

Back to HCB News

MRI Homepage