In the early to mid 1990s, fluoro came under the microscope due to induced-burns during certain types of procedures... the net-effect of that attention turned out very good for the use of the fluoroscope in general... raised awareness, etc.
as a matter of fact, the most notable recent aspect of the fluoro matter came from The Joint Commission, the accrediting commission of health care organizations...
on two fronts in one creed, they want this:
1.// specified actions taken when radiotherapy is applied to the wrong site...
2.// specified actions taken when fluoroscopic radiation dose is greater than anticipated for the given procedure... moreover, note, the american academy of physicists in medicine, as a group concensus strongly/proactively advocated that the wording/phrasing of this component of the two-part creed included, this part "...greater than anticipated for the given procedure."
NOTE: i am paraphrasing the wording for both (1) and (2), but you get my point.
now, for hopsitals, etc., to become accredited with flying colors... something that hospitals administrators truly strive to acquire ~ that is, accreditation by The Joint Commission, they must show in-place actions plans/contingencies for such incidences.
so, to carry out my point, i think we may likely see something similar to this for CT scanning.
*****
i want to stress this though, both fluoro systems and current CT systems can show the cumulative dose received during its use for the procedure/exam. it's an interpolation based on multiple factors, and is found under the heading, and thus referred to as, the "dose summary."
