Role of Medical Surveillance in Risk Management

Interventionalists' perceptions on a culture of radiation protection

BACKGROUND

Occupational exposure to ionising radiation poses potential health risks to radiation workers unless adequate protection is in place. The catheterisation laboratory is a highly contextualised workplace with a distinctive organisational and workplace culture.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to understand the culture of radiation protection (CRP).

METHODS

This study was a qualitative study and data were collected through 30 in-depth and 6 group interviews with 54 purposively selected South African interventionalists (interventional radiologists and cardiologists). The participants included a diversity of interventionalists who varied in sex, geographic location and years of experience with fluoroscopy. The transcribed data were analysed thematically using a deductive and inductive approach.

RESULTS

'Culture of radiation protection' emerged as a complex theme that intersected with other themes: 'knowledge and awareness of radiation', 'radiation safety practice', 'personal protective equipment (PPE) utilisation' and 'education and training'.

CONCLUSION

Establishing and sustaining a CRP provides an opportunity to mitigate the potentially detrimental health effects of occupational radiation exposure. Education and training are pivotal to establishing a CRP. The time to establish a culture of radiation in the catheterisation laboratory is now.

Methodological, political and legal issues in the assessment of the effects of nanotechnology on human health

Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) raise questions among the scientific community and public health authorities about their potential risks to human health. Studying a prospective cohort of workers exposed to ENMs would be considered the gold standard for identifying potential health effects of nanotechnology and confirming the 'no effect' levels derived from cellular and animal models. However, because only small, cross-sectional studies have been conducted in the past 5 years, questions remain about the health risks of ENMs. This essay addresses the scientific, methodological, political and regulatory issues that make epidemiological research in nanotechnology-exposed communities particularly complex. Scientific challenges include the array of physicochemical parameters and ENM production conditions, the lack of universally accepted definitions of ENMs and nanotechnology workers, and the lack of information about modes of action, target organs and likely dose-response functions of ENMs. Standardisation of data collection and harmonisation of research protocols are needed to eliminate misclassification of exposures and health effects. Forming ENM worker cohorts from a combination of smaller cohorts and overcoming selection bias are also challenges. National or international registries for monitoring the exposures and health of ENM workers would be helpful for epidemiological studies, but the creation of such a registry and ENM worker cohorts will require political support and dedicated funding at the national and international levels. Public authorities and health agencies should consider carrying out an ENM awareness campaign to educate and engage all stakeholders and concerned communities in discussion of such a project.

Systematic Review of Screening and Surveillance Programs to Protect Workers from Nanomaterials

Background

Screening and surveillance approaches for workers exposed to nanomaterials could aid in early detection of health effects, provide data for epidemiological studies and inform action to decrease exposure. The aim of this review is to identify such screening and surveillance approaches, in order to extract available data regarding (i) the studies that have successfully been implemented in present day, (ii) identification of the most common and/or toxic nano-related health hazards for workers and (iii) possible exposure surveillance markers. This review contributes to the current understanding of the risk associated with nanomaterials by determining the knowledge gap and making recommendations based on current findings.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted. PubMed and Embase were searched to identify articles reporting on any surveillance-related study that described both exposure to nanomaterials and the health indicators that were measured. Four reviewers worked in pairs to independently assess the eligibility of studies and risk of bias before extraction of data. Studies were categorised according to the type of study and the medical surveillance performed, which included the type of nanomaterial, any exposure details provided, as well as health indicators and biomarkers tested.

Results

Initially 92 studies were identified, from which 84 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Seven studies met all the inclusion criteria, i.e. those performed in Taiwan, Korea, Czech Republic and the US. Of these, six compared health indicators between exposed and unexposed workers and one study described a surveillance program. All studies were at a high risk of bias. Workers were exposed to a mix of nanomaterials in three studies, carbon-based nanomaterials in two studies, nano-silver in one study and nano-titanium oxide in the other study. Two studies did not find a difference in biomarkers between exposed and unexposed workers. In addition, differences in early effects on pulmonary function or neurobehavioral tests were not observed. One study found an increased prevalence of allergic dermatitis and “sneezing” in the exposed group.

Conclusions

This review of recently published data on surveillance studies proves that there is a gap in the current knowledge, where most of the surveillance-related studies reported do not follow a set format that provides the required information on ENM characterisation, the type of exposure and the measured indicators/biomarkers. Hence, there is very low quality evidence that screening and surveillance might detect adverse health effects associated with workplace exposure. This systematic review is relevant because it proves that, although surveillance programs have been initiated and preliminary results are being published, the current studies are actually not answering the important questions or solving the overall problem regarding what the potential health hazards are among workers either handling or potentially exposed to ENMs. The recommendations, thus proposed, are based on an obvious need for (i) exposure registries, where longitudinal follow-up studies should inform surveillance, (ii) known exposure measurements or summary indices for ENMs as a reference (iii) validation of candidate biomarkers and (iv) studies that compare the effects of these surveillance approaches to usual care, e.g. those commonly followed for bulk-size hazardous materials.

Taking stock of the occupational safety and health challenges of nanotechnology: 2000-2015

Engineered nanomaterials significantly entered commerce at the beginning of the 21st century. Concerns about serious potential health effects of nanomaterials were widespread. Now, approximately 15 years later, it is worthwhile to take stock of research and efforts to protect nanomaterial workers from potential risks of adverse health effects. This article provides and examines timelines for major functional areas (toxicology, metrology, exposure assessment, engineering controls and personal protective equipment, risk assessment, risk management, medical surveillance, and epidemiology) to identify significant contributions to worker safety and health. The occupational safety and health field has responded effectively to identify gaps in knowledge and practice, but further research is warranted and is described. There is now a greater, if imperfect, understanding of the mechanisms underlying nanoparticle toxicology, hazards to workers, and appropriate controls for nanomaterials, but unified analytical standards and exposure characterization methods are still lacking. The development of control-banding and similar strategies has compensated for incomplete data on exposure and risk, but it is unknown how widely such approaches are being adopted. Although the importance of epidemiologic studies and medical surveillance is recognized, implementation has been slowed by logistical issues. Responsible development of nanotechnology requires protection of workers at all stages of the technological life cycle. In each of the functional areas assessed, progress has been made, but more is required.