Radiologic Technology最新文献

Purpose: To assess the quality of clinical radiography systems by auditing quality assurance (QA) and radiation protection compliance in Ghanaian diagnostic imaging facilities and by evaluating x-ray exposure indicator (EI) metrics through quality control (QC) testing to assess equipment performance.

Methods: An empirical audit assessed QA and radiation protection compliance using internationally harmonized guidelines. Experimental QC tests measured EI metrics using a solid-state x-ray multimeter based on the International Atomic Energy Agency Technical Cooperation Regional Project RAF6/053 protocols. Deviations from standard EI metrics were analyzed to determine compliance.

Results: This study evaluated 43 radiography systems used throughout 41 facilities. One facility had an established QA program with periodic QC measurements. Radiation protection compliance was satisfactory concerning aprons, barriers, and waiting areas; however, no facility had infant immobilization devices. EI deviations were within acceptable tolerances, except the half-value layer, which fell below recommended limits (, 2.9 mm aluminum [Al] but . 2.3 mm Al) in 11 facilities.

Discussion: Although compliance was high for certain QA and radiation protection guidelines, deficiencies were noted. Lack of QA documentation and essential radiation protection accessories necessitates increased regulatory enforcement, structured training programs, and standardized nationwide QA implementation.

Conclusion: Gaps exist in QA and radiation protection implementation in some Ghanaian radiography facilities. Strengthened regulatory oversight, comprehensive QA and QC practices, and improved radiation protection compliance are essential for enhancing radiographic quality and safety.

Purpose: To investigate if there has been an elimination of gonadal and fetal shielding during routine abdominal and pelvic imaging compared with other radiologic examination types such as torso or extremity examinations.

Methods: This original, mixed-methods, pilot research study used an anonymous 22-question survey to collect data. Respondents drawn from social media groups, cold calls, and current colleagues of the author were asked to complete the survey during a 31-day period. Questions were focused on the responding technologists' demographics and when they shield patients based on examination type, age, and sex.

Results: Of the 38 survey respondents, 36 stated they would not shield during pelvis imaging; 15 stated they would not shield during torso imaging; 31 stated they would not shield during lumbar imaging; and 10 stated they would not shield during extremity imaging. The survey results also showed that patients' age, sex, and risk of covering anatomy have a vital role in current shielding practices. However, 25 respondents stated that their employer does not have a different shielding protocol for male and female patients. Of the respondents, 89% reported having a rolling lap shield available for use during upright imaging studies. Findings showed that many technologists do not shield during various examinations.

Discussion: This study provides a starting point for future research and acknowledges a shift in shielding practices. The findings of this study can be used by administrators and other professionals when examining their current shielding protocols.

Conclusion: The results from this pilot survey show that, in addition to patient radiation dose, other important factors, such as examination type and patient age, influence a technologist's decision to shield.