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 , Niamh Moore , Rena Young , Silvia Svetlic , Helen Bucknall , Mark F. McEntee , 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 , Niamh Moore , Rena Young , Silvia Svetlic , Helen Bucknall , Mark F. McEntee , 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。
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.
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.