Subdeacon Joe Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 http://www.ajronline.org/doi/full/10.2214/ajr.178.5.1781092 An off-duty police officer went to an outpatient imaging center (not affiliated with our institution) in western New York State to have an MR imaging examination. The facility housed a 1.5-T MR unit (Signa; General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI) with active shielding. The officer was carrying a model 1991 A-1 compact.45 caliber semiautomatic pistol (Colt's Manufacturing, Hartford, CT). The officer notified the technologist that he was carrying the weapon before entering the MR dressing room. The technologist told the officer to take the gun with him. The technologist intended to meet the officer in the MR patient waiting area before the examination and secure the weapon in that room, where he felt it would be safe. However, the officer apparently misunderstood and took the gun into the MR suite. The technologist was entering the officer's personal data into the computer and did not see him entering the MR suite. Once the officer was inside the MR suite, the gun was pulled from his hand as he attempted to place the gun on top of a cabinet 3 ft (0.9 m) away from the magnet bore. The gun was immediately pulled into the bore, where it struck the left side and spontaneously discharged a round into the wall of the room at the rear of the magnet. Fortunately, no one was injured. Although the gun struck the magnet bore, only minimal cosmetic damage occurred to the magnet itself. The MR unit had full functional capability immediately after the gun discharged. The weapon's thumb safety was reportedly engaged when the gun discharged. Read More: http://www.ajronline.org/doi/full/10.2214/ajr.178.5.1781092 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrus Cassidy #45437 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Weird. We have been trained to stand well clear of said machines for other reasons. If we have a person in custody who is injured and undergoing an MRI / CAT / CT scan (drunk drivers who crash are frequently in this condition) we have to accompany them for several reasons. 1- they can't get away. 2- if we're doing legal blood tests for alcohol / drugs, we need to be able to testify they had not consumed any alcohol / drugs since the crash. So anyway, we had an instance where the officer was standing too close to he MRI machine, and the small parts in his sidearm became magnetized. When he went to fire the gun, the magnetic force in the firing pin was keeping it in the back position; the magnetism was stronger than the spring trying to make the pin go forward. It's a good thing the problem was discovered on the range! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Nelson Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Huh. I wonder what hospital that was? Two of the authors are with University of Rochester Medical Center and one is with the Rochester Police Department, so I imagine it was in Rochester. But I don't remember hearing about it in the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Hand Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Well since that happened in 2002 (12 yrs ago) and there haven't been any further reports I guess it's not a common occurrence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpo Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Yeah, I saw what Joe wrote and thought, "Again??" 12 year old story. Ahhh. That's why it sounded familiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Bristol Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 That magnet is why I was told never to go near an MRI machine after getting my pacemaker. Was told it is possible to pull it right out of my chest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 I posted this because I found the format of the incident report interesting, and the investigation thorough. I also liked the conclusion: "One can look at the sequence of events preceding the discharge of the weapon and see several points at which the incident could have been prevented. When the officer came in with the gun, it should have been immediately secured in a safe location, even before the officer changed for the examination. The technologist, knowing the officer had a firearm, should have instructed him that under no circumstances could he bring the weapon into the MR suite. Also, the technologist should have been monitoring the officer more closely to make sure he did not enter the MR suite with the weapon. Signs should have been posted at that site, if they were not already there, warning the public of the dangers of approaching the magnetic field of the MR imager with implants, metallic devices, or objects such as firearms. In light of this incident, all radiologists should reexamine our own site's screening methods to ensure that steps are implemented to prevent such a situation from ever recurring." Well reasoned, not a panicked "blame the gun" diatribe. Just pointing out steps that could be taken to lessen the likelihood of such an event happening again. You know, the way reports like this should be done. Read More: http://www.ajronline.org/doi/full/10.2214/ajr.178.5.1781092 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Nelson Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 In light of this incident, all radiologists should reexamine our own site's screening methods to ensure that steps are implemented to prevent such a situation from ever recurring." Well reasoned, not a panicked "blame the gun" diatribe. Just pointing out steps that could be taken to lessen the likelihood of such an event happening again. You know, the way reports like this should be done. That's because it's written by scientists and doctors, not activists and politicians. They just want the who, what, where, when, how, and why, and "how can we do it better next time?" I appreciate that they didn't hold the officer responsible, either. The machine operator is the one who is trained to know the limitations and dangers of the device, and is responsible for keeping other people who come near it out of trouble. But again, it wasn't a witch hunt or blame session. They went looking for gaps in their procedures so they could close them up, not sacrifice somebody's career in the name of "doing something." Much as I like to grumble about the company I work for, that's one thing I don't see a lot of is finger pointing. If there's a problem the questions are all about how do we fix it, and how do we keep it from happening again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Slim SASS #24733 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Not that it matters, but this was not a "spontaneous" discharge. spon·ta·ne·ous spänˈtānēəs/ adjective performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus. "the audience broke into spontaneous applause" synonyms: unplanned, unpremeditated, unrehearsed, impulsive, impetuous,unstudied, impromptu, spur-of-the-moment, extempore, extemporaneous;More (of a person) having an open, natural, and uninhibited manner. synonyms: natural, uninhibited, relaxed, unselfconscious, unaffected, open,genuine, easy, free and easy; More (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause. The gun slammed into the magnet, I would think with a great amount of force, knocking the safety off and tripping the sear. That is not "Spontaneous". . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.