Indian Journal of Radiology Indian Journal of Radiology  

   Login   | Users online: 2005

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size     

 

 Table of Contents    
MISCALLENEOUS  
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 30  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 64-69
A study to assess the knowledge and practice of medical professionals on radiation protection in interventional radiology


1 Cellular and Molecular Research Center, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasouj, Iran
2 Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences; Department of Radiology, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shira University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
3 Department of Radiology, Faculty of Paramedical, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran
4 Department of Radiation Sciences, School of Paramedical Sciences, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
5 Department of Chemistry, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission06-Aug-2019
Date of Acceptance28-Jan-2020
Date of Web Publication30-Mar-2020
 

   Abstract 


Objective: Ionizing radiation has been extensively used in medical procedures throughout the world. Such interventional radiological procedures could result in occupational exposure that needs urgent control. Therefore, MPs (medical professionals) should receive education and appropriate training on occupational radiation protection. In this context, the present study is aimed to investigate the MPs' knowledge and practice regarding radiation protection principles during interventional radiological procedures. Material and Methods: A descriptive questionnaire-based study was carried out among 215 MPs involved in interventional fluoroscopy procedures. The practice of 31 MPs was studied using a checklist based on ALARA principles and ICRP guidelines. Results: A total of 43.3% and 45.1% answered correctly for knowledge and practice. However, the difference between radiation protection knowledge and practice between the physicians and nurses was statistically significant. The knowledge and practice survey of MPs demonstrated that nurses rarely adhered to radiation-protection measures. Conclusion: The present study reflects the lack of knowledge and practice concerning radiation protection concepts among the nurses. This deficiency needs to be resolved by periodic practical radiation protection courses in the curriculum of medicine.

Keywords: Education; knowledge; medical professionals; practice, radiation protection

How to cite this article:
Shafiee M, Rashidfar R, Abdolmohammadi J, Borzoueisileh S, Salehi Z, Dashtian K. A study to assess the knowledge and practice of medical professionals on radiation protection in interventional radiology. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2020;30:64-9

How to cite this URL:
Shafiee M, Rashidfar R, Abdolmohammadi J, Borzoueisileh S, Salehi Z, Dashtian K. A study to assess the knowledge and practice of medical professionals on radiation protection in interventional radiology. Indian J Radiol Imaging [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Jun 5];30:64-9. Available from: http://www.ijri.org/text.asp?2020/30/1/64/281572



   Introduction Top


The use of interventional X-ray procedures has been continuously increasing since 1950; the investigators reported a dramatic increase in the number and frequency of medical-related exposures.[1] Medical professionals (MPs) are exposed to both primary and scattered radiation during various radiological procedures.[1] Particularly, there is a concern regarding the occupational exposure of MPs involved in the interventional radiological procedures, especially when the presence of MPs is mandatory in the radiation area during radiation exposure. Although interventional radiology is associated with low-dose radiation,[2] however, the potential damages of radiation during fluoroscopically guided and CT-guided procedures in the interventional laboratory are significant on the MPs,[3] and, particularly, the nurses.[4]

Numerous interventional medical imaging procedures can potentially expose the workers to the low-energy radiation which may cause biological stochastic effects on the MPs.[5],[6] Stochastic effects refer to the mutations which can potentially lead to cancers or genetic disorders. The primary basis for estimating the cancer risks due to the ionizing radiation exposures are the epidemiological studies on the Japanese atomic bomb survivors who were primarily exposed to high dose rates. The risks of radiation associated with low-dose exposures of MPs through radiological procedures should be also evaluated. Some studies report an excess risk of cancer among MPs due to low-dose exposures.[7],[8]

Some studies have addressed the occupational exposure-induced cancer rate and mortality among radiation workers.[9] The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) reported a decrease of occupational exposure in an effective dose per individual in the United States, while the number and frequency of medical exposures were increased.[10] Most of the obtained occupational effective dose values are well below the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) dose limits; however, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) reported that only a few countries have provided the data on interventional occupational exposures. Moreover, several studies have observed the annual effective dose and the percentage of measurable exposures on radiation workers.[11] According to the UNSCEAR report, during the interventional procedures, the average annual effective doses are 1.6 mSv and 3.1 mSv for MPs and radiation workers, respectively.[11]This report demonstrates the necessity to consider the safety of MPs involved in the interventional radiological procedures.

In ICRP Report No 118, the equivalent dose limit for the eye lens for occupational exposure of radiation workers was reduced from 150 mSv year-1 to 20 mSv year-1.[12] Some of the earlier retrospective cohort studies reported the excess risk of cataract among the radiologic technologists assisting in interventional radiological procedures.[13],[14]

It is recommended that healthcare workers can reduce the risks of radiation using various standard principles such as ALARA, which consist of three important parts: time, distance, and shielding. According to the ICRP recommendation, occupational radiation protection can be achieved by applying three main principles: justification, optimization, and dose limitation.[15] MPs are continuously exposed to the ionizing radiation; therefore, they must receive proper education and training to minimize their occupational dose. This study is aimed to survey the knowledge, practice, and the factors affecting the practices of MPs concerning the radiation protection regulations during the interventional fluoroscopy procedures.


   Material and Methods Top


The main purpose of this descriptive questionnaire-based study was to evaluate the knowledge and practice of MPs. The knowledge of 215 medical professionals (MPs) participating in the C-Arm (Technix, TCA 6) fluoroscopically-guided procedures including 174 nurses, and 41 physicians (urologist, orthopedics, surgery, neurologists, and radiologist) was evaluated by a questionnaire [Table 1] and [Table 2]. The questionnaire encompassed two major parts including various questions on radiation protection principles. The first part was related to demographic information such as the participant's age, sex, and work experience [Table 1]. The second section consisted of 17 questions [Table 2] testing their knowledge on radiation protection principles. Furthermore, the practice of 31 MPs (24 nurses and 7 physicians) involved in the interventional fluoroscopy procedures was studied by a checklist of questions [Table 3]. The checklist included ten questions on radiation protection practice provided based on the ICRP guidelines and the ALARA principles.
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of participants in current study

Click here to view
Table 2: The questionnaire applied to assess the knowledge of 215 medical professionals, CAR%(N): CAR%: Correct Answers rate, N: Number of Correct Answers, The percent and number of physicians and nurses who answered the questions correctly are shown in the third column seperately

Click here to view
Table 3: The checklist applied to evaluate the practice of 31 medical professionals, P%: Percentage of Participants, N: Number of Participants

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

The validity of the questionnaire was assessed by three radiologists and medical physicists, and its reliability was determined by the test-retest (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88). After collecting the data, statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS 16 software through the parametric (Student's t-test) and nonparametric (Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis) tests. All the values are rounded by two decimal places. Each participant signed a consent form, and the study was reviewed and approved by the ethical committee of Yasuj University of Medical Sciences.


   Results Top


The correct answer rates (CAR) of the knowledge and practice parts of MPs were separately determined for each question [Table 2] and [Table 3]. Our findings indicated that CAR of the practice and knowledge of the nurses was significantly lower than those of the physicians (P = 0/007, P = 0/001,respectively). The CAR of the knowledge in terms of the operator distance and time was 50.6% and 52%, respectively. Concerning the place of the personal dosimeter, the CAR of knowledge was 87.4%. Surprisingly, while MPs were familiar with the right place of the personal dosimeter, 12.9% of them chose to not use it, 16% wore it inappropiratly, and 9.6% of them forgot to wear their dosimeters during the interventional fluoroscopy procedures [Figure 1].
Figure 1: The knowledge and practice of MPs of personal dosimeter usage

Click here to view


Considering shielding (personal protective devices and equipment-mounted shields), the CAR of knowledge about shielding (personal protective devices and equipment mounted shields) was 40.4%. Concerning the personal protective devices, the lowest and highest CAR of the knowledge was observed for eyewear and gloves (23.7% and 58%), respectively.

66.1% of the MPs did not wear personal protective devices led by eyewear, 77.4%, thyroid shields, 64.5%, and aprons, 58%. Moreover, 74.1% of the MPs did not know how to appropriately use the mounted shielding equipment during the interventional fluoroscopy procedures. Furthermore, a significant disparity was observed between physicians and nurses concerning the use of the shielding (P < 0.001).

The results showed that only 25.5% of the physicians and nurses were familiar with the staff positioning to alleviate their occupational exposure to the radiation scattered from the patient. Less than one-third of the participants knew about the leakage radiation from the tube X-ray (25.5%) and 17.2% of them were aware of the radiation scattered from the patient's body. The lack of knowledge on the radiological questions about the stochastic and nonstochastic effects was clear (28.3%). The results also indicated that the participants with a low level of work experience (1–4 years) had less knowledge about the radiation-induced stochastic and non-stochastic effects as compared with the more experienced participants (>20 years) (P = 0.043).

The majority (88.3%) of MPs were aware that fetuses or pregnant mothers are more sensitive to radiation compared to the other patients. Nearly 16% of the MPs were familiar with the organ radiosensitivity during interventional radiology. Furthermore, only 19 respondents knew about the occupational dose limits for MPs according to ICRP recommendations.

According to the first part of the questionnaire, 134 nurses (77%) did not pass a radiation protection course during their undergraduate and postgraduate studies or at their workplace. In the case of the physicians, the condition was better although 34% did not receive such education during their studies. Moreover, none of the MPs had any practical training in their workplace or during their education on radiation safety. Our findings showed that the highest rate of proficiency about radiation protection was found among the MPs that received a radiation protection course in the workplace or their educational curriculum (P = 0.041). Among the physicians, the radiologists and surgical specialists had the highest and lowest correct answers rates, respectively (P = 0.03).

According to the first part of the questionnaire, one of our most considerable findings was that 17 nurses had radiophobia and four female nurses withdrew to participate in fluoroscopically-guided procedures.


   Discussion Top


The results of this study showed that only 47.7% of the participants were able to comprehend the concept of ALARA, although it is the basic principle of radiation protection. Nearly 88% of the physicians were familiar with the basic concepts of radiological procedures as a primary principle of the patients' radiation protection.[15] This finding confirms the ICRP reports expressing that some radiological procedures are prescribed without sufficient justification.[15] Moreover, 8.8% of the MPs knew about the ICRP dose limit (a fundamental part of most radiation protection programs) and the fact that the purpose of individual radiation monitoring is to ensure that the dose limits are not exceeded.

The significance of radiation-sensitive organ shielding in reducing the equivalent and effective dose has been already approved.[16] According to the basic principles of radiation protection, the protective leaded aprons and thyroid shields must be periodically applied during the interventional procedures; however, most of the MPs ignored the role of the personal protective devices in controlling the occupational radiation exposure. Flôr and colleagues[17]showed that technicians did not even use these personal protective devicesas they found that such equipment heavy and uncomfortable (particularly leaded aprons). Among the personal protective devices, MPs exhibited the lowest knowledge and the weakest practice for the leaded eyewear, while the risk of exceeding the annual lens dose limit can be dramatically reduced upon using leaded eyewear shields during the interventional radiological procedures.[18] It should be mentioned that ICRP recommended 20 mSv year-1as a dose limit for the eyes lens, averaged over defined periods of 5 years, with no annual dose in a single year exceeding 50 mSv.[12]

The participant's awareness of the right place of personal dosimeter (87.4%) was appropriate, but the MPs' practice demonstrated that 12.8% of them did not use the personal dosimeters appropriately [Figure 1]. Similarly, working with the ionizing radiation without personal dosimeters has been reported in the other studies as well.[19],[20] This may affect the accurate and precise determination of the equivalent and effective doses in order to compare it with the dose limits. It was observed that the MPs' physical dosimetry values are lower than the dose limits between 2014 and 2016.[21]

All of the MPs only applied one personal dosimeter during the interventional fluoroscopy procedures, whereas the ICRP publication 117 recommends a double-dosimetry method, one under the leaded apron and the other at the collar level above the lead apron.[22] Furthermore, an additional dosimeter was recommended to estimate the dose absorbed by hand during the interventional radiological procedures.[23] The hands of the physicians may be highly exposed to the radiation, however, only a few countries have reported data on the equivalent doses in hands.[11] It seems that particular attention should be paid to extremity doses received during the interventional radiology.

It is generally known that significant amount of radiation is scattered when the radiation flows through the patient body; although, in interventional radiology, the MPs spend a substantial amount of time inside the X-ray rooms with significant radiation intensity.[1] Only 37 (17.2%) of the MPs knew that radiation scattering from the patients' bodies is one of the prominent sources of radiation exposure. Another important findingis that 17 (54.8%) of the nurses suffered from radiophobia and some of the female nurses preferred to avoid participating in the interventional fluoroscopy procedures, which might be due to the rumors or lack of precise knowledge on the radiobiological effects of radiation. A similar finding has been observed among the nurses investigated in the work of Dianati et al.[24],[25],[26] It seems that the main reason for their reluctance to assist in the radiological examinations was the lack of practical radiation protection education and training. Our results also indicated that the MPs are not entirely aware of the radiobiological effects of radiation, which is in agreement with a previous study carried out by Alotaibi et al.[26]

Several studies have indicated the poor radiation protection awareness of the MPs.[27],[28],[29],[30] There are also some other researchers that reported proper awareness of the MPs.[31],[32] Such discrepancies could be due to the participants and the research methodology. According to the results of the current study, the CAR of knowledge toward radiation protection was 57.81%, 39.88%, 43.30% among the physicians, nurses, and all MPs, respectively. This value was 40% and 39% in the studies carried out by Keijzers et al.[29] and Soya et al.,[33] respectively. The lack of effective radiation protection practice was also observed among the nurses, which can be attributed to the insufficient training in the field of radiation protection.[20] In summary, our research indicates that the lack of knowledge and practice among the nurses makes them unable to protect the patients and themselves against ionizing radiation. It may indicate a deficiency in the educational training of nurses since this study, in addition to many others,[20],[34],[35] showed that most of the nurses had not passed any theoretical course or practical trainingon radiation protection at the universities or hospitals.


   Conclusion Top


The current study showed that many medical professionals (MPs) are not aware of the necessary scientific information about the radiation protection concepts and practices which may lead to serious radiation-related errors. The potential benefits of MPs, as active players in radiation protection, need to be emphasized in universities and hospitals, where the curriculum contents in radiation sciences are insufficient. Additional training is also recommended in medical schools or hospitals.

Financial support and sponsorship

The study was supported by Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Miller DL. Overview of contemporary interventional fluoroscopy procedures. Health Phys 2008; 95:638-44.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Valentin J. Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. Ann ICRP 2000;30:7-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Barr JMB, Schiska AD. Radiologic safety: Historical perspectives and contemporary recommendations. J Radiol Nurs 2005; 24:6-10.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Cupitt J, Vinayagam S, McConachie I. Radiation exposure of nurses on an intensive care unit. Anaesthesia 2001; 56:183.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Grover SB, Kumar J, Gupta A, Khanna L. Protection against radiation hazards: Regulatory bodies, safety norms, does limits and protection devices. Indian J Radiol Imag 2002;12:157-67.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Grover S, KumarJ. A review of the current concepts of radiation measurement and its biological effects. Indian J Radiol Imag 2002;12:21-32.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Muirhead CR, O'Hagan JA, Haylock RG, Phillipson MA, Willcock T, Berridge GL, et al. Mortality and cancer incidence following occupational radiation exposure: Third analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. Br J Cancer 2009; 100:206-12.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M, Gilbert E, Hakama M, Hill C, et al. Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: Retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. BMJ 2005;331:77.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Teschke K, Chow Y, Chung J, Ratner P, Spinelli J, Le N, et al. Estimating nurses' exposures to ionizing radiation: The elusive gold standard. J Occup Environ Hyg 2007;5:75-84.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
J. Thurston NCRP report no. 160: ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States Phys Med Biol, 55 (2010), p. 6327.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) (2008) Effects of ionizing radiation: UNSCEAR 2006 report to the general assembly, with scientific annexes, vol 1. United Nations, New York, pp 40–42  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Authors on behalf of ICRP, Stewart FA, Akleyev AV, Hauer-Jensen M, Hendry JH, Kleiman NJ, Macvittie TJ, et al. 118, I.P., ICRP statement on tissue reactions and early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs–threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. Ann ICRP 2012;41:1-333.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Little MP, Kitahara CM, Cahoon EK, Bernier MO, Velazquez-Kronen R, Doody MM, et al. Occupational radiation exposure and risk of cataract incidence in a cohort of US radiologic technologists. Eur J Epidemiol 2018;33:1179-91.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Velazquez-Kronen R, Borrego D, Gilbert ES, Miller DL, Moysich KB, Freudenheim JL, et al. Cataract risk in US radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: Aretrospective cohort study. Occup Environ Med 2019;76:317-25.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Protection R. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007;37:2.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Foley SJ, McEntee MF, Achenbach S, Brennan PC, Rainford LS, Dodd JD. Breast surface radiation dose during coronary CT angiography: Reduction by breast displacement and lead shielding. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:367-73.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Flôr RdC, Gelbcke FL. Radiation protection and the attitude of nursing staff in a cardiac catherization laboratory. Texto Contexto-Enferm2013;22:416-22.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Omar A, Kadesjö N, Palmgren C, Marteinsdottir M, Segerdahl T, Fransson A, et al. Assessment of the occupational eye lens dose for clinical staff in interventional radiology, cardiology and neuroradiology. J Radiol Prot2017;37:145-59.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Troisi K, FerreiraN. Radiation exposure to orthopaedic registrars in the Pietermaritzburg Metropolitan Complex. SA Orthop J2016;15:38-42.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Thambura MJ, Vinette CI. Nurses' knowledge of ionizing radiation in northern gauteng state hospitals in South Africa. J Radiol Nursing 2019;38:56-60.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Shafiee M, Hoseinnezhad E, Vafapour H, Borzoueisileh S, Ghorbani M, Rashidfar R. Hematological findings in medical professionals involved at intraoperative fluoroscopy. Glob J Health Sci2016;8:232.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Rehani MM, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Vañó E, Miller DL, Walsh S, Giordano BD, Persliden J. 117, I.P., Radiological protection in fluoroscopically guided procedures performed outside the imaging department. Ann. ICRP2010;40:1-102.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Whitby M, Martin CJ.A study of the distribution of dose across the hands of interventional radiologists and cardiologists. BrJRadiol2014.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Siddiqui SS, Jha A, Konar N, Ranganathan P, Deshpande DD, Divatia JV. Radiation exposure among medical professionals working in the Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med2014;18:591-5.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
25.
Dianati M, Zaheri A, Talari HR, Deris F, Rezaei S. Intensive care nurses' knowledge of radiation safety and their behaviors towards portable radiological examinations. NursMidwifery Stud2014;3:e23354.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Alotaibi M, Saeed R. Radiology nurses' awareness of radiation. J Radiol Nurs2006;25:7-12.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Alzubaidi MA, al Mutairi HH, Alakel SM, Al Abdullah HAS, Albakri IA, Alqahtani SFA. Assessment of knowledge and attitude of nurses towards ionizing radiation during radiography in Jeddah City, 2017. Egypt J Hosp Med2017;69:2906-9.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Amis ES Jr, Butler PF, Applegate KE, Birnbaum SB, Brateman LF, Hevezi JM, et al. American college of radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. JAm CollRadiol2007;4:272-84.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Keijzers GB, Britton CJ. Doctors' knowledge of patient radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging requested in the emergency department. MedJ Aust2010;193:450-3.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Hyde A, Coughlan B, Naughton C, Hegarty J, Savage E, Grehan J, et al. Nurses', physicians' and radiographers' perceptions of the safety of a nurse prescribing of ionising radiation initiative: A cross-sectional survey. IntJNurs Stud2016;58:21-30.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
McCusker M, de Blacam C, Keogan M, McDermott R, Beddy P. Survey of medical students and junior house doctors on the effects of medical radiation: Is medical education deficient? Irish JMed Sci2009;178:479-83.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Slechta AM, Reagan JT. An examination of factors related to radiation protection practices. RadiolTechnol2008;79:297-305.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Soye, J.A. and Paterson, A. A Survey of Awareness of Radiation Dose among Health Professionals in Northern Ireland. The British Journal of Radiology, 81, 725-729.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Ohno K, Kaori T. Effective education in radiation safety for nurses. RadProt Dosimetry 2011;147:343-5.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Badawy MK, Mong KS, Paul Lykhun U, Deb P. An assessment of nursing staffs' knowledge of radiation protection and practice. J Radiol Prot2016;36:178-83.  Back to cited text no. 35
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Zaker Salehi
Department of Radiation Sciences, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijri.IJRI_333_19

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
   Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
   Material and Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed241    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded51    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal