Challenges for managing the cumulative effective dose for patients

How confident are UK radiographers at performing paediatric computed tomography trauma scans?

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 45% of paediatric deaths in the United Kingdom (UK) were as a result of trauma. Computed tomography (CT) provides time efficient and accurate diagnosis, increasing chances of survival. Whilst use of CT in evaluating paediatric trauma has been invaluable it carries significant radiation risks, largely because children have greater radiation sensitivity than adults. Although national paediatric trauma workload in the UK is proportionately low, the majority of paediatric patients are conveyed to hospitals which predominantly undertake CT scans on adult patients. This research aimed to determine the confidence levels of radiographers when performing paediatric CT trauma scans in three public hospitals in the UK, and whether a teaching intervention improved their perceived self-confidence.

METHODS

Individual questionnaires containing eight qualitative and quantitative questions were used to ascertain radiographers' perceived confidence levels. A teaching intervention was developed based on responses. A post-intervention questionnaire was used to determine whether radiographers' confidence levels had improved.

RESULTS

Radiographers (n = 45) reported a mean confidence score of 5.6 (standard deviation 2.2) and 8.0 (standard deviation 1.7) scanning paediatric trauma patients pre- and post-intervention respectively. A paired two group t-test found this difference to be statistically significant at p < .00001. Radiographers reported several factors which negatively influenced confidence levels, including limited experience and postgraduate education.

CONCLUSION

Radiographers reported to be less confident scanning paediatric CT trauma patients compared to adults, pre- and post-intervention, however this research does not clarify whether this is as a result of an increase in competence. Further research regarding this concept warrants investigation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Results suggest further training based on negative factors reported by radiographers can increase confidence when performing this type of scan, assisting radiographers in optimising paediatric patient doses.

Development of a New Radiation Shield for the Face and Neck of IVR Physicians

Interventional radiology (IVR) procedures are associated with increased radiation exposure and injury risk. Furthermore, radiation eye injury (i.e., cataract) in IVR staff have also been reported. It is crucial to protect the eyes of IVR physicians from X-ray radiation exposure. Many IVR physicians use protective Pb eyeglasses to reduce occupational eye exposure. However, the shielding effects of Pb eyeglasses are inadequate. We developed a novel shield for the face (including eyes) of IVR physicians. The novel shield consists of a neck and face guard (0.25 mm Pb-equivalent rubber sheet, nonlead protective sheet). The face shield is positioned on the left side of the IVR physician. We assessed the shielding effects of the novel shield using a phantom in the IVR X-ray system; a radiophotoluminescence dosimeter was used to measure the radiation exposure. In this phantom study, the effectiveness of the novel device for protecting against radiation was greater than 80% in almost all measurement situations, including in terms of eye lens exposure. A large amount of scattered radiation reaches the left side of IVR physicians. The novel radiation shield effectively protects the left side of the physician from this scattered radiation. Thus, the device can be used to protect the face and eyes of IVR physicians from occupational radiation exposure. The novel device will be useful for protecting the face (including eyes) of IVR physicians from radiation, and thus could reduce the rate of radiation injury. Based on the positive results of this phantom study, we plan to perform a clinical experiment to further test the utility of this novel radiation shield for IVR physicians.

The cumulative radiation dose paradigm in pediatric imaging

Medical imaging professionals have an accountability for both quality and safety in the care of patients that have unexpected or anticipated repeated imaging examinations that use ionizing radiation. One measure in the safety realm for repeated imaging is cumulative effective dose (CED). CED has been increasingly scrutinized in patient populations, including adults and children. Recognizing the challenges with effective dose, including the cumulative nature, effective dose is still the most prevalent exposure currency for recurrent imaging examinations. While the responsibility for dose monitoring incorporates an element of tracking an individual patient cumulative radiation record, a more complex aspect is what should be done with this information. This challenge also differs between the pediatric and adult population, including the fact that high cumulative doses (e.g.,>100 mSv) are reported to occur much less frequently in children than in the adult population. It is worthwhile, then, to review the general construct of CED, including the comparison between the relative percentage occurrence in adult and pediatric populations, the relevant pediatric medical settings in which high CED occurs, the advances in medical care that may affect CED determinations in the future, and offer proposals for the application of the CED paradigm, considering the unique aspects of pediatric care.

Non-Lead Protective Aprons for the Protection of Interventional Radiology Physicians from Radiation Exposure in Clinical Settings: An Initial Study

Radiation protection/evaluation during interventional radiology (IVR) poses a very important problem. Although IVR physicians should wear protective aprons, the IVR physician may not tolerate wearing one for long procedures because protective aprons are generally heavy. In fact, orthopedic problems are increasingly reported in IVR physicians due to the strain of wearing heavy protective aprons during IVR. In recent years, non-Pb protective aprons (lighter weight, composite materials) have been developed. Although non-Pb protective aprons are more expensive than Pb protective aprons, the former aprons weigh less. However, whether the protective performance of non-Pb aprons is sufficient in the IVR clinical setting is unclear. This study compared the ability of non-Pb and Pb protective aprons (0.25- and 0.35-mm Pb-equivalents) to protect physicians from scatter radiation in a clinical setting (IVR, cardiac catheterizations, including percutaneous coronary intervention) using an electric personal dosimeter (EPD). For radiation measurements, physicians wore EPDs: One inside a personal protective apron at the chest, and one outside a personal protective apron at the chest. Physician comfort levels in each apron during procedures were also evaluated. As a result, performance (both the shielding effect (98.5%) and comfort (good)) of the non-Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective apron was good in the clinical setting. The radiation-shielding effects of the non-Pb 0.35-mm and Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective aprons were very similar. Therefore, non-Pb 0.35-mm Pb-equivalent protective aprons may be more suitable for providing radiation protection for IVR physicians because the shielding effect and comfort are both good in the clinical IVR setting. As non-Pb protective aprons are nontoxic and weigh less than Pb protective aprons, non-Pb protective aprons will be the preferred type for radiation protection of IVR staff, especially physicians.

Why is radiological protection different in medicine? Sievert Memorial Lecture

There are many aspects of radiological protection in medicine that are different from other areas of activity using ionising radiation. In this paper, the author presents and justify some of these differences and highlight the reasons for and benefits of this consideration for the medical field. It is important to understand the differences as we are all likely to be patients at some point in our lives and be exposed to ionising radiation for imaging procedures several times and, in some cases, for therapeutic indications. The work done by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and other international organisations to produce and recommend a consistent system of radiological protection in medicine for the safe use of ionising radiation in medical practices must be highlighted. We should understand why we do not apply dose limits and dose constraints to patients, as well as why we have three levels of justification when considering the use of ionising radiation for patients. We highlight the relevance of personalised radiation protection in parallel to personalised medical practice, and the importance of an integrated approach for occupational and patient protection, especially for interventional procedures. We also cover the differences between patients and volunteers in biomedical research, the importance of radiation safety in quality assurance programmes (including the consideration of unintended and accidental exposures) for some clinical practices, and the relevance of education and training in radiological protection for medical and health professionals and information on radiation risks for patients. Finally, the ethical issues with regard to the safe use of ionising radiation in medicine and the impact of new technology will be addressed.

Radiation protection perspective to recurrent medical imaging: what is known and what more is needed?

This review summarises the current knowledge about recurrent radiological imaging and associated cumulative doses to patients. The recent conservative estimates are for around 0.9 million patients globally who cumulate radiation doses above 100 mSv, where evidence exists for cancer risk elevation. Around one in five is estimated to be under the age of 50. Recurrent imaging is used for managing various health conditions and chronic diseases such as malignancies, trauma, end-stage kidney disease, cardiovascular diseases, Crohn's disease, urolithiasis, cystic pulmonary disease. More studies are needed from different parts of the world to understand the magnitude and appropriateness. The analysis identified areas of future work to improve radiation protection of individuals who are submitted to frequent imaging. These include access to dose saving imaging technologies; improved imaging strategies and appropriateness process; specific optimisation tailored to the clinical condition and patient habitus; wider utilisation of the automatic exposure monitoring systems with an integrated option for individual exposure tracking in standardised patient-specific risk metrics; improved training and communication. The integration of the clinical and exposure history data will support improved knowledge about radiation risks from low doses and individual radiosensitivity. The radiation protection framework will need to respond to the challenge of recurrent imaging and high individual doses. The radiation protection perspective complements the clinical perspective, and the risk to benefit analysis must account holistically for all incidental and long-term benefits and risks for patients, their clinical history and specific needs. This is a step toward the patient-centric health care.

Higher patient doses through X-ray imaging procedures

Medical imaging using X-rays has been one of the most popular imaging modalities ever since the discovery of X-rays 125 years ago. With unquestionable benefits, concerns about radiation risks have frequently been raised. Computed tomography (CT) and fluoroscopic guided interventional procedures have the potential to impart higher radiation exposure to patients than radiographic examinations. Despite technological advances, there have been instances of increased doses per procedure mainly because of better diagnostic information in images. However, cumulative dose from multiple procedures is creating new concerns as effective doses >100 mSv are not uncommon. There is a need for action at all levels. Manufacturers must produce equipment that can provide a quality diagnostic image at substantially lesser dose and better implementation of optimization strategies by users. There is an urgent need for the industry to develop CT scanners with sub-mSv radiation dose, a goal that has been lingering. It appears that a new monochromatic X-ray source will lead to replacement of X-ray tubes all over the world in coming years and will lead to a drastic reduction in radiation doses. This innovation will impact all X-ray imaging and will help dose reduction. For interventional procedures, the likely employment of robotic systems in practice may drastically reduce radiation exposures to operators- but patient exposure will still remain an issue. Training needs always need to be emphasized and practiced.