Status of radiation protection in interventional cardiology in four East European countries

Compliance With Radiation Protection Practices Among Radiologists

BACKGROUND

Radiologists are at higher risk of adverse health effects due to their occupational radiation exposure; therefore, applying protection techniques is imperative. Studies on radiologists' compliance in this regard are scarce. We aimed to assess compliance with radiation safety practices among radiologists.

METHODS

Questionnaires were distributed to radiologists in tertiary hospitals. The questionnaire was designed to assess compliance in three domains: using personal protective devices, using exposure-reduction techniques during fluoroscopic exposures, and using personal dose-monitoring devices. Descriptive analysis of the compliance was performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-two radiologists were included in the analysis. Use of leaded aprons and thyroid shields was commonplace, whereas only 3.2% ever use leaded eyeglasses. About half of the radiologists always considered reducing the time of exposure and avoided exposure by the primary beam, and the other half did that sometimes. Most of the radiologists (66.1%) always complied with reducing the number of unnecessary exposures, and the rest only complied sometimes. Most of the radiologists (93.5%) always used single personal dose-monitoring devices, most commonly at the neck level over the collar. There was no difference in compliance between different sexes, position descriptions, hospital types, hospital sizes, or years of experience.

CONCLUSION

Future compliance improvement strategies for radiologists should focus on use of thyroid shields and leaded eyeglasses and use of exposure-reduction techniques during fluoroscopic operations.

Survey on impact of regulations on radiation safety and development of radiation safety culture in 25 countries

The purpose of this work was to assess the: (a) impact of regulations on radiation safety and development of radiation safety culture, (b) perceived safety level in the participating facilities, (c) future needs regarding strengthening of regulations, patient dose consideration, and exposure tracking, in different countries around the world. Appropriate questionnaires probing the above-mentioned themes were sent to radiologic professionals working in healthcare facilities. A total of 257 responses from 25 countries were received and analyzed. Average scores for the three different sections/themes of the questionnaire ranged from 64.6% to 74.9%. Higher scores indicated stronger agreement of the survey participants with the theme in question. Statistical comparisons among different professional groups revealed that professionals in developing countries perceived regulations to be significantly more important for improving safety than their counterparts in developed countries did. Radiologic professionals believe that regulation enhances radiation safety and the development of safety culture. However, there is still room for improvement regarding the implementation of regulatory tools. Safety levels were perceived to be satisfactory, and future needs point toward strengthening of regulations regarding patient dose control, patient dose consideration, and patient exposure tracking. The results of this study should be interpreted keeping possible selection bias in view.

Approaches to aspects of optimisation of protection in diagnostic radiology in six continents

There has been an expansion in the use of x-ray imaging during the last 20 years. Effective arrangements for justification of exposures as well as for optimisation of protection are crucial. The amount of effort put into the latter, the way in which it is organised and the groups carrying this out vary across the globe. A simple survey of organisational arrangements relating to performance testing of x-ray equipment, management of patient dose and other aspects of implementing optimisation has been undertaken. A total of 137 completed survey forms were received from medical physicists in 48 countries. Results for individual countries from which more responses were received, or for groups of neighbouring ones, are compared to portray variations. Some performance testing of x-ray equipment was mandated in most countries (more than 90%), with the tests being performed primarily by hospital or private medical physicists, although other groups are involved. Testing of equipment prior to clinical use was generally high for most regions, but the frequency was lower in Latin America. There was considerable variation in the frequency and regularity of subsequent testing. The prevalence of patient dose surveys was high in Europe, but lower in other continents. Organisational arrangements for testing performance of x-ray equipment, patient dose surveys and implementing optimisation of protection in medical exposures across the globe can be divided into five main groups. Hospital medical physicists take the lead in western Europe and Australia with the involvement of radiographers. Private medical physicists test equipment in Brazil, the USA and New Zealand, and have some responsibility for optimisation in Brazil. University personnel have significant involvement, together with medical physicists in eastern Europe, but the extent of the coverage is uncertain. Government personnel and service engineers carry out equipment testing in many countries of Africa and Asia, while radiographers have a significant role in Thailand and other countries where the number of medical physicists is limited. In order for dose surveys to have an impact, action must be taken upon the findings, but there must be an effective link between surveyors and radiology facility staff to ensure that this is done.