介入放射学和心导管实验室辐射防护知识、态度和实践调查

IF 1.3 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences Pub Date : 2024-06-21 DOI:10.1016/j.jmir.2024.101440
Megan O'Rourke , Niamh Moore , Rena Young , Silvia Svetlic , Helen Bucknall , Mark F. McEntee , Andrew England
{"title":"介入放射学和心导管实验室辐射防护知识、态度和实践调查","authors":"Megan O'Rourke ,&nbsp;Niamh Moore ,&nbsp;Rena Young ,&nbsp;Silvia Svetlic ,&nbsp;Helen Bucknall ,&nbsp;Mark F. McEntee ,&nbsp;Andrew England","doi":"10.1016/j.jmir.2024.101440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>According to current literature, there is a lack of information regarding the radiation protection (RP) practices of interventional radiology (IR) and cardiology catheter laboratory (CCL) staff. This study aims to determine the RP practices of staff within IR and CCLs internationally and to suggest areas for improvement.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A cross-sectional study in the form of an online questionnaire was developed. Participation was advertised via online platforms and through email. Participants were included if they were healthcare professionals currently working in IR and CCLs internationally. Questionnaire design included <em>Section 1</em> demographic data, <em>Section 2</em> assessed RP training and protocols, <em>Section 3</em> surveyed the use of different types of RP lead shields, both personal and co-worker use and <em>Section 4</em> assessed other methods of minimising radiation dose within practice. Questions were a mix of open and closed ended, descriptive statistics were used for closed questions and thematic analysis was employed for open ended responses.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 178 responses to the questionnaire were recorded with 130 (73 %) suitable for analysis. Most respondents were female (<em>n</em> = 94, 72 %) and were radiographers (<em>n</em> = 97, 75 %). Only 68 (53 %) had received training, the majority receiving this in-house (<em>n</em> = 54, 79 %). 118 (98 %) of respondents had departmental protocols in place for RP. Radiology managers (<em>n</em> = 106, 82 %) were most likely to contribute to such protocols. Multiple methods of dose minimisation exist, these include low-dose fluoroscopy, staff rotation, radiation dose audits and minimal time in the controlled areas. Respondents reported that lead apron shields were wore personally by 99 % of respondents and by co-workers in 95 % of cases.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The practices of RP by IR and CCL staff in this survey was variable and can be improved. The unavailability of basic radiation protection tools and RP specific training courses/modules were some of the reasons for sub-optimal self-protection against ionising radiation reported by respondents.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46420,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1939865424001668/pdfft?md5=38c6dbd6d26fb287025d90fd06af6e7a&pid=1-s2.0-S1939865424001668-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An investigation into the knowledge, attitudes, and practice of radiation protection in interventional radiology and cardiac catheter-laboratories\",\"authors\":\"Megan O'Rourke ,&nbsp;Niamh Moore ,&nbsp;Rena Young ,&nbsp;Silvia Svetlic ,&nbsp;Helen Bucknall ,&nbsp;Mark F. McEntee ,&nbsp;Andrew England\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmir.2024.101440\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>According to current literature, there is a lack of information regarding the radiation protection (RP) practices of interventional radiology (IR) and cardiology catheter laboratory (CCL) staff. This study aims to determine the RP practices of staff within IR and CCLs internationally and to suggest areas for improvement.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A cross-sectional study in the form of an online questionnaire was developed. Participation was advertised via online platforms and through email. Participants were included if they were healthcare professionals currently working in IR and CCLs internationally. Questionnaire design included <em>Section 1</em> demographic data, <em>Section 2</em> assessed RP training and protocols, <em>Section 3</em> surveyed the use of different types of RP lead shields, both personal and co-worker use and <em>Section 4</em> assessed other methods of minimising radiation dose within practice. Questions were a mix of open and closed ended, descriptive statistics were used for closed questions and thematic analysis was employed for open ended responses.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 178 responses to the questionnaire were recorded with 130 (73 %) suitable for analysis. Most respondents were female (<em>n</em> = 94, 72 %) and were radiographers (<em>n</em> = 97, 75 %). Only 68 (53 %) had received training, the majority receiving this in-house (<em>n</em> = 54, 79 %). 118 (98 %) of respondents had departmental protocols in place for RP. Radiology managers (<em>n</em> = 106, 82 %) were most likely to contribute to such protocols. Multiple methods of dose minimisation exist, these include low-dose fluoroscopy, staff rotation, radiation dose audits and minimal time in the controlled areas. Respondents reported that lead apron shields were wore personally by 99 % of respondents and by co-workers in 95 % of cases.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The practices of RP by IR and CCL staff in this survey was variable and can be improved. The unavailability of basic radiation protection tools and RP specific training courses/modules were some of the reasons for sub-optimal self-protection against ionising radiation reported by respondents.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1939865424001668/pdfft?md5=38c6dbd6d26fb287025d90fd06af6e7a&pid=1-s2.0-S1939865424001668-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1939865424001668\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1939865424001668","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景根据目前的文献,有关介入放射学(IR)和心脏导管实验室(CCL)工作人员辐射防护(RP)实践的信息还很缺乏。本研究旨在确定国际上介入放射学和心导管实验室工作人员的辐射防护实践,并就需要改进的方面提出建议。我们通过在线平台和电子邮件发布了参与广告。参与调查的人员必须是目前在IR和CCL工作的医护人员。问卷设计包括第 1 部分的人口统计学数据,第 2 部分评估 RP 培训和协议,第 3 部分调查不同类型 RP 铅屏蔽的使用情况,包括个人和同事使用情况,第 4 部分评估在实践中最大限度减少辐射剂量的其他方法。问题包括开放式和封闭式两种,封闭式问题采用描述性统计,开放式问题采用主题分析。大多数受访者为女性(94 人,占 72%)和放射技师(97 人,占 75%)。只有 68 名受访者(53%)接受过培训,其中大部分是在内部接受的培训(n = 54,79%)。118名受访者(98%)制定了部门 RP 规程。放射科管理人员(n=106,82%)最有可能对此类规程做出贡献。有多种将剂量最小化的方法,包括低剂量透视、人员轮换、辐射剂量审计和在控制区最少停留时间。99%的受访者表示个人会穿戴铅围裙,95%的受访者表示同事会穿戴铅围裙。没有基本的辐射防护工具和专门的辐射防护培训课程/模块,是受访者报告的电离辐射自我防护未达到最佳水平的部分原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An investigation into the knowledge, attitudes, and practice of radiation protection in interventional radiology and cardiac catheter-laboratories

Background

According to current literature, there is a lack of information regarding the radiation protection (RP) practices of interventional radiology (IR) and cardiology catheter laboratory (CCL) staff. This study aims to determine the RP practices of staff within IR and CCLs internationally and to suggest areas for improvement.

Methods

A cross-sectional study in the form of an online questionnaire was developed. Participation was advertised via online platforms and through email. Participants were included if they were healthcare professionals currently working in IR and CCLs internationally. Questionnaire design included Section 1 demographic data, Section 2 assessed RP training and protocols, Section 3 surveyed the use of different types of RP lead shields, both personal and co-worker use and Section 4 assessed other methods of minimising radiation dose within practice. Questions were a mix of open and closed ended, descriptive statistics were used for closed questions and thematic analysis was employed for open ended responses.

Results

A total of 178 responses to the questionnaire were recorded with 130 (73 %) suitable for analysis. Most respondents were female (n = 94, 72 %) and were radiographers (n = 97, 75 %). Only 68 (53 %) had received training, the majority receiving this in-house (n = 54, 79 %). 118 (98 %) of respondents had departmental protocols in place for RP. Radiology managers (n = 106, 82 %) were most likely to contribute to such protocols. Multiple methods of dose minimisation exist, these include low-dose fluoroscopy, staff rotation, radiation dose audits and minimal time in the controlled areas. Respondents reported that lead apron shields were wore personally by 99 % of respondents and by co-workers in 95 % of cases.

Conclusion

The practices of RP by IR and CCL staff in this survey was variable and can be improved. The unavailability of basic radiation protection tools and RP specific training courses/modules were some of the reasons for sub-optimal self-protection against ionising radiation reported by respondents.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences
Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
231
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences is the official peer-reviewed journal of the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists. This journal is published four times a year and is circulated to approximately 11,000 medical radiation technologists, libraries and radiology departments throughout Canada, the United States and overseas. The Journal publishes articles on recent research, new technology and techniques, professional practices, technologists viewpoints as well as relevant book reviews.
期刊最新文献
A bibliometric analysis on research authorship and collaboration patterns in radiography professional journals: A 10-year review The design and construct a website for collection and report diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in diagnostic radiography Beyond the Machine: A Radiographer's Tale Innovative Learning Activities to Prepare Radiography Students for Final-Year Clinical Placements: An Educational Perspective Enhancing radiation therapy student's cultural competency and safety of Canadian Indigenous populations using cultural immersion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1