Occupational Radiation Exposure of Anesthesia Providers: A Summary of Key Learning Points and Resident-Led Radiation Safety Projects

Refocusing on work-based hazards for the anaesthesiologist in a post-pandemic era

The coronavirus pandemic has raised public awareness of one of the many hazards that healthcare workers face daily: exposure to harmful pathogens. The anaesthesia workplace encompasses the operating room, interventional radiology suite, and other sites that contain many other potential occupational and environmental hazards. This review article highlights the work-based hazards that anaesthesiologists and other clinicians may encounter in the anaesthesia workplace: ergonomic design, physical, chemical, fire, biological, or psychological hazards. As the anaesthesia work environment enters a post-COVID-19 pandemic phase, anaesthesiologists will do well to review and consider these hazards. The current review includes proposed solutions to some hazards and identifies opportunities for future research.

Radiation safety for pain physicians: principles and recommendations

C-arm fluoroscopy is a useful tool for interventional pain management. However, with the increasing use of C-arm fluoroscopy, the risk of accumulated radiation exposure is a significant concern for pain physicians. Therefore, efforts are needed to reduce radiation exposure. There are three types of radiation exposure sources: (1) the primary X-ray beam, (2) scattered radiation, and (3) leakage from the X-ray tube. The major radiation exposure risk for most medical staff members is scattered radiation, the amount of which is affected by many factors. Pain physicians can reduce their radiation exposure by use of several effective methods, which utilize the following main principles: reducing the exposure time, increasing the distance from the radiation source, and radiation shielding. Some methods reduce not only the pain physician's but also the patient's radiation exposure. Taking images with collimation and minimal use of magnification are ways to reduce the intensity of the primary X-ray beam and the amount of scattered radiation. It is also important to carefully select the C-arm fluoroscopy mode, such as pulsed mode or low-dose mode, for ensuring the physician's and patient's radiation safety. Pain physicians should practice these principles and also be aware of the annual permissible radiation dose as well as checking their radiation exposure. This article aimed to review the literature on radiation safety in relation to C-arm fluoroscopy and provide recommendations to pain physicians during C-arm fluoroscopy-guided interventional pain management.

Awareness about radiation hazards and knowledge about radiation protection among healthcare personnel: A quaternary care academic center-based study

Background:

The use of medical radiation in diagnosis and procedural and surgical treatment is increasing. Therefore, healthcare personnel should be adequately aware and knowledgeable about radiation hazards to protect themselves and their patients from its adverse effects. The objective of this study was to examine awareness about radiation hazards and knowledge about protection methods among the anesthesia personnel and surgical subspecialists of a quaternary care academic center.

Methods:

A validated questionnaire was completed by anesthetic personnel and surgical subspecialists. It consisted of questions that required demographic information and assessed awareness about radiation hazards. In addition, 15 multiple-choice questions assessed knowledge about radiation across the following domains: the main principle of radiation protection, personal annual radiation dose, personal protection equipment, safe distance from an X-ray machine, and susceptible organs.

Results:

A total of 270 potential participants were emailed and invited to respond to an online questionnaire, and the response rate was 79.3%. Of the 214 participants, 69.2% were women; the mean age of the sample was 34.8 years. Most of the participants (63.1%) considered radiation exposure that occurs as a part of daily work to be very harmful; 86.4% and 78.5% reported that they always wore a lead apron and a thyroid shield when working in an environment that entails radiation exposure, respectively. The mean score for knowledge about radiation hazards and protection was 6.4 ± 2.0 (maximum possible score = 15) Therefore, there is a need to improve anesthetic personnel and surgical subspecialists’ knowledge about radiation protection, especially with regard to the use of lead goggles and harmful doses of radiation.

Conclusion:

The present findings suggest that there is a reasonable level of awareness but a relative lack of knowledge about radiation hazards and protection among anesthesia personnel and surgical subspecialists. Therefore, continuing medical education on radiation hazards and protection must be mandated.

The radiation environment of anaesthesiologists in the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography room

Anaesthesiologists are increasingly involved in nonoperating room anaesthesia (NORA) for fluoroscopic procedures. However, the radiation exposure of medical staff differs among NORA settings. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the radiation environment generated by fluoroscopic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and the radiation exposure of anaesthesiologists. The dose area product (DAP), radiation entrance dose (RED), and fluoroscopy time (FT) according to the procedures and monthly cumulative radiation exposure were analysed at two sites (neck and wrist) from 363 procedures in 316 patients performed within 3 months. The total RED and DAP were 43643.1 mGy and 13681.1 Gy cm2, respectively. DAP and RED (r = 0.924) were strongly correlated and DAP and FT (r = 0.701) and RED and FT (r = 0.749) were moderately correlated. The radiation environment per procedure varied widely, DAP and RED per FT were the highest during stent insertion with esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Monthly cumulative deep dose equivalents at the wrist and neck ranged between 0.31-1.27 mSv and 0.33-0.59 mSv, respectively, but they were related to jaw thrust manipulation (r = 0.997, P = 0.047) and not to the radiation environment. The anaesthesiologists may be exposed to high dose of radiation in the ERCP room, which depends on the volume of procedures performed and perhaps the anaesthesiologists' practice patterns.

Radiation Safety Perceptions and Practices Among Pediatric Anesthesiologists: A Survey of the Physician Membership of the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Pediatric anesthesiologists are exposed to ionizing radiation from x-rays on an almost daily basis. Our goal was to determine the culture of safety in which they work and how they adhere to preventative strategies that minimize exposure risk in their daily practice.

METHODS

After Institutional Review Board waiver and approval of the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia's research and quality and safety committees, an electronic e-mail questionnaire was sent to the Society's physician, nontrainee members and consisted of questions specific to provider use of protective lead shielding, the routine use of dosimeters, and demographic information. Univariate analyses were performed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for ordinal variables, the Fisher exact test for categorical variables, and the Spearman test to analyze correlation between 2 ordinal variables, while a proportional odds logistic regression was used for a multivariable ordinal outcome analysis. P values of <.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Twenty-one percent (674/3151) of the surveyed anesthesiologists completed the online questionnaire. Radiation exposure is ubiquitous (98.7%), and regardless of sex, most respondents were either concerned or very concerned about radiation exposure (76.8%); however, women were significantly more concerned than men (proportional odds ratio, 1.66 [95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.31]; P = .002). Despite this and independent of sex, level of concern was not associated with use of a radiation dosimeter (P = .85), lead glasses (odds ratio, 1.07 [95% confidence interval, 0.52-2.39]; P = 1.0), or a thyroid shield (P = .12). Dosimeters were rarely (13%) or never used (52%) and were mandated in only 28.5% of institutions. Virtually none of the respondents had ever taken a radiation safety course, received a personal radiation dose report, notification of their radiation exposure, or knew how many millirem/y was considered safe. Half of the respondents were female, and while pregnant, 73% (151/206) tried to avoid radiation exposure by requesting not to be assigned to cases requiring x-rays. These requests were honored 78% (160/206) of the time.

DISCUSSION

Despite universal exposure to ionizing radiation from x-rays, pediatric anesthesiologists do not routinely adhere to strategies designed to limit the intensity of this exposure and rarely work in institutions in which a culture of radiation safety exists. Our study highlights the need to improve radiation safety education, the need to change the safety culture within the operating rooms and imaging suites, and the need to more fully investigate the utility of dosimeters, lead shielding, and eye safety measures in pediatric anesthesia practice.

Radiation safety: a focus on lead aprons and thyroid shields in interventional pain management

C-arm fluoroscopy is useful equipment in interventional pain management because it helps to guide correct needle targeting for the accurate injection and drug delivery. However, due to increased use of C-arm fluoroscopy in various pain procedures, the risk of radiation exposure is a significant concern for pain physicians. The harmful biological effects of ionizing radiation on the human body are well known. It is therefore necessary to strive to reduce radiation exposure. Lead aprons with thyroid shields are the most fundamental radiation protective devices for interventional procedures, and are very effective. However, the operator's radiation safety cannot be guaranteed because pain physicians seem to lack sufficient interest, knowledge, and awareness about radiation safety. Also, inappropriate care and use of radiation protective devices may result in a higher risk of radiation exposure. The purpose of this article was to review the literature on radiation safety with a focus on lead aprons and thyroid shields and present recommendations related to those devices during C-arm fluoroscopic-guided interventions by pain physicians.