Sudden perceived absence of foetal movement - a unique presentation of a vertebral haemangioma in pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: Symptomatic vertebral haemangiomas that present during pregnancy are extremely uncommon with few cases reported in literature. Epidural haemangiomas are rarer still with few documented. METHODS: In this report, we describe the case of a 22-year-old pregnant patient who presented with apparent loss of foetal movement at 38 weeks' gestation. Clinical review demonstrated the foetus was well but neurological examination revealed lower limb paresthesia, paresis and evident uterine hypoesthesia. An MRI scan illustrated a haemangioma in the T1 vertebral body with an epidural component causing cord compression. RESULTS: The management of spinal haemangiomas that present during pregnancy is a complex clinical scenario, which requires careful multidisciplinary consideration to determine if surgical intervention is appropriate. In this case, the patient had an emergency caesarean section followed by posterior decompression and laminectomy of the T1 vertebra with excellent post-operative recovery. CONCLUSION: Gestational increase in the size of vertebral haemangiomas is well documented. We discuss a rare case in which a young pregnant patient presents with an atypical symptom of a vertebral haemangioma (uterine hypoesthesia). This case highlights the importance of prompt imaging in these scenarios and a cohesive multidisciplinary approach in order to provide optimal treatment for the patient.

Levelling the playing field: students' motivations to contribute to an amnesty of assessment materials.

BACKGROUND: 'Exam recall' is a recognised phenomenon whereby students recall and record questions after leaving the examination hall. This poses two main problems. First, as these questions are only available to peers of the students who recall the questions, these individuals have an unfair advantage. Secondly, the distribution of these recalled questions poses a threat to the validity and defensibility of assessments. To address the first of these problems, we developed an amnesty enabling students to submit assessment material to an on-line site. This study sought to explore which factors influence students' contributions to an amnesty of assessment material. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured focus groups. We used convenience sampling and recruited participants from all years of our undergraduate medical programme. The focus groups were facilitated by a medical student peer to reduce the power imbalance and encourage participants to discuss candidly. The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently analysed all transcripts using thematic analysis and the research team met regularly to discuss emergent findings. Nvivo was used to assist with thematic analysis of the transcripts. RESULTS: Twenty-six individuals participated in six focus groups. Six themes were identified through the analysis, which were categorised into motivating factors and de-motivating factors. Motivating factors were a perception that this would overcome inequity, a fear of repercussions, and the perceived usefulness of resources. Factors that prevented students contributing were a culture of competition, a lack of incentives, and mistrust of the medical school. CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of an amnesty was acceptable to students and they were motivated to contribute materials. The competitive nature of medical careers and the stakes of summative assessments meant that students felt that some peers might still not contribute their materials. Students felt that the school were listening to their concerns and this led to a better dialogue between students and faculty.

Knowledge of radiation legislation and radiation exposure in common radiological investigations among final year medical students, foundation doctors, specialist radiology registrars and radiographers at a UK university teaching hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Junior doctors routinely request radiological investigations for patients. Prior studies have noted that among this group there is a lack of knowledge on radiation legislation and radiation exposure in common radiological investigations. However, no studies have compared this against radiology trainees and radiographers. We compared knowledge of radiation legislation and radiation exposure in common radiological investigations among final year medical students (FYMS), foundation year doctors (FY1, FY2) against specialist radiology trainees (SRT) and radiographers (RG). METHODS: A 12-question multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ) was distributed to FYMS, FY1, FY2, SRT and RG at a UK teaching hospital. Questions assessed knowledge of radiation legislation and radiation-dose estimates of common radiological investigations. Mean MCQ scores were compared using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-test to determine statistical significance (p-value < 0.05). RESULTS: 127 participants were included in the study. Mean scores (%) for FYMS (49.3%), FY1 (52.6%) and FY2 (51.1%) were significantly lower compared to SRT (64.4%) and RG (66.3%) (p-value < 0.05). Mean test scores between FYMS, FY1 and FY2 did not significantly differ (p-value > 0.05). CONCLUSION: FYMS, FY1 and FY2 knowledge of radiation legislation and radiation exposure in common radiological investigations was poor compared to SRT and RG. Patients require knowledge of radiation risk to provide informed consent as per IRMER regulations, thus we propose formal teaching on the subject matter to promote radiation safety culture among medical undergraduates and postgraduates. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: First study to compare knowledge of radiation legislation and radiation exposure in common radiological investigations between medical students and junior doctors to radiology trainees and radiographers.