Radiation protection in a cohort of healthcare workers: knowledge, attitude, practices, feelings and IR-exposure in French hospitals.

The number of healthcare workers occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation (IR) is increasing every year. As health effects from exposure to low doses IR have been reported, radiation protection (RP) in the context of occupational activities is a major concern. This study aims to assess the compliance of healthcare workers with RP policies, according to their registered cumulative dose, profession, and perception of radiation self-exposure and associated risk. Every healthcare worker from one of the participating hospitals in France with at least one dosimetric record for each year 2009, 2014, and 2019 in the SISERI registry was included and invited to complete an online questionnaire including information on the worker's occupational exposure, perception of IR-exposure risk and RP general knowledge. Hp(10) doses were provided by the SISERI system. Multivariate logistic regressions were used. Dosimeter wearing and RP practices compliance were strongly associated with 'feeling of being IR-exposed' (OR = 3.69, CI95% 2.04-6.66; OR = 4.60, CI95% 2.28-9.30, respectively). However, none of these factors was associated with RP training courses attendance. The main reason given for non-compliance is unsuitability or insufficient numbers of RP devices. This study provided useful information for RP policies. Making exposed workers aware of their own IR-exposure seems to be a key element to address in RP training courses. This type of questionnaire should be introduced into larger epidemiological studies. Dosimeter wearing and RP practices compliance are associated to feeling being IR-exposed. RP training courses should reinforce workers' awareness of their exposure to IR.

[Occupational exposure level and requirements for radiation protection of nuclear medical staff].

With the rapid development of nuclear medicine, the number of nuclear medical staff has increased a lot in the past few years in China. Close-range operations, such as preparation and injections of radiopharmaceuticals, are usually carried out in nuclear medicine department. And the use of unsealed radionuclides may also create internal exposure risk. So, occupational exposure of nuclear medical staff is a main issue of occupational health management in China. In this paper, the occupational exposure level and requirements for radiation protection of nuclear medical staff are introduced to provide references for the related work that radiological health technical institutions carry out.

Strengthening radiation protection education and training of health professionals: conclusions from an IAEA meeting.

In March 2021 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) organised an online Technical Meeting on Developing Effective Methods for Radiation Protection Education and Training of Health Professionals with attendance of 230 participants representing 66 Member States and 24 international organizations, professional bodies and safety alliances. By means of a pre-meeting survey, presentations by experts, topical panel discussions and post-meeting feedback to the meeting summary, the meeting identified strengths, common weaknesses and possible solutions and actions for improving radiation protection education and training of health professionals. Available guidelines and resources for radiation protection training were also reviewed. The meeting discussion resulted in a strong consensus for the need of: (a) international guidance on education and training in radiation protection and safety for health professionals, (b) an international description of minimum standards of initial and ongoing competence and qualification in radiation protection for relevant professional groups, considering the available recommendations at international and regional levels. The proposed actions include provisions for train-the-trainer credentialing and facility training accreditation, balance betwee the online and face-to-face training, improved on-the job training, as well as improved inclusion in training programmes of aspects related to application of new technologies, ethical aspects, development of communication skills, and use of software tools for improving justification and optimisation. The need for making the ongoing training practical, applicable, and useful to the trainee was highlighted. The international consultation initiated by the IAEA was appreciated as a good approach to understand and promote coordination and collaboration at all levels, for best results in education and training in radiation protection of health professionals. Implementing such a holistic approach to education and training in radiation protection would contribute towards qualification and competence of health professionals needed to ensure application of high standards for quality and safety in medical uses of ionizing radiation.

[Effective Techniques to Reduce Radiation Exposure to Medical Staff during Assist of X-ray Computed Tomography Examination].

Medical staffs like radiological technologists, doctors, and nurses are at an increased risk of exposure to radiation while assisting the patient in a position or monitor contrast medium injection during computed tomography (CT). However, methods to protect medical staff from radiation exposure and protocols for using radiological protection equipment have not been standardized and differ among hospitals. In this study, the distribution of scattered X-rays in a CT room was measured by placing electronic personal dosimeters in locations where medical staff stands beside the CT scanner gantry while assisting the patient and the exposure dose was measured. Moreover, we evaluated non-uniform exposure and revealed effective techniques to reduce the exposure dose to medical staff during CT. The dose of the scattered X-rays was the lowest at the gantry and at the examination table during both head and abdominal CT. The dose was the highest at the trunk of the upper body of the operator corresponding to a height of 130 cm during head CT and at the head corresponding to a height of 150 cm during abdominal CT. The maximum dose to the crystalline lens was approximately 600 µSv during head CT. We found that the use of volumetric CT scanning and X-ray protective goggles, and face direction toward the gantry reduced the exposure dose, particularly to the crystalline lens, for which lower equivalent dose during CT scan has been recently recommended in the International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 118.

Radiation safety awareness among medical staff.

BACKGROUND: The common access to imaging methods based on ionizing radiation requires also radiation protection. The knowledge of ionizing radiation exposure risks among the medical staff is essential for planning diagnostic procedures and therapy. Evaluation of the knowledge of radiation safety during diagnostic procedures among the medical staff. MATERIAL/METHODS: The study consisted of a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire consisted of seven closed-ended questions concerning the knowledge of the effects of exposure to ionizing radiation as well as questions related to responder's profession and work experience. The study group included a total of 150 individuals from four professional groups: nurses, doctors, medical technicians, support staff. The study was carried out in the three largest hospitals in Gdansk between July and October 2013. RESULTS: The highest rates of correct answers to questions related to the issue of radiation protection were provided by the staff of radiology facilities and emergency departments with 1-5 years of professional experience. The most vulnerable group in terms of the knowledge of these issues consisted of individuals working at surgical wards with 11-15 years of professional experience. CONCLUSIONS: Education in the field of radiological protection should be a subject of periodic training of medical personnel regardless of position and length of service.

Background Factors Affecting the Radiation Exposure of the Lens of the Eye among Nurses in Interventional Radiology: A Quantitative Observational Study.

With the International Commission on Radiological Protection's (ICRP) reduction in the radiation dose threshold for cataracts, evaluating and preventing radiation exposure to the lens of the eye among interventional radiology (IR) staff have become urgent tasks. In this study, we focused on differences in lens-equivalent dose (HT Lens) to which IR nurses in three hospitals were exposed and aimed to identify factors underlying these differences. According to analyses of time-, distance-, and shielding-related factors, the magnitude of the HT Lens dose to which IR nurses were exposed could be explained not by time or shielding but by the distance between the X-ray exposure field and the location of the IR nurse. This distance tended to be shorter in hospitals with fewer staff. The most effective means of reducing the exposure of the lenses of IR nurses' eyes to radiation is to position them at least two meters from the radiation source during angiography procedures. However, some hospitals must provide IR departments with comparatively few staff. In work environments where it is infeasible to reduce exposure by increasing distance, interventions to reduce time by managing working practices and investment in shielding equipment are also important. This study was not registered.

A follow-up questionnaire survey 2022 on radiation protection among 464 medical staff from 34 endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments in Japan.

Objectives: We surveyed and reported low protective equipment usage and insufficient knowledge among endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments in Japan in 2020. Two years later, we conducted a follow-up survey of doctors, nurses, and technologists in Japan. Methods: We conducted a questionnaire survey on radiation protection from May to June 2022. The participants were medical staff, including doctors, nurses, and radiological and endoscopy technicians in endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments. The questionnaire included 17 multiple-choice questions divided into three parts: background, equipment, and knowledge. Results: We surveyed 464 subjects from 34 institutions. There were 267 doctors (58%), 153 nurses (33%), and 44 technologists (9%). The rate of wearing a lead apron was 98% in this study. The rates of wearing a thyroid collar, lead glasses, and radiation dosimeter were 27%, 35%, and 74%, respectively. The trend of the protective equipment rate was similar to that of our previous study; however, radiation dosimetry among doctors was still low at 58%. The percentage of subjects who knew the radiation exposure (REX) dose of each procedure was low at 18%. Seventy-six percent of the subjects attended lectures on radiation protection, and 73% knew about the three principles of radiation protection; however, the concept of diagnostic reference levels was not well known (18%). Approximately 60% of the subjects knew about the exposure dose increasing cancer mortality (63%) and the 5-year lens REX limit (56%). Conclusions: There was some improvement in radiation protection equipment or education, but relatively little compared to the 2020 survey of endoscopy departments.

Awareness of Radiation Protection and Common Radiation Dose Levels Among Healthcare Workers.

Introduction: Access to ionizing radiation has become widely available for diagnosis and treatment. The increased use of ionizing radiation has been associated with radiation exposure hazards for patients and radiation workers. Raising the level of radiation protection awareness is important to maintain the safety of healthcare settings. Methods: Online questionnaires were distributed to 755 healthcare workers and students at King Abdulaziz Medical City and King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire consisted of 14 multiple-choice questions divided into two sections (questions related to radiation protection and common radiologic examination doses). Results: In total, 443 participants completed the questionnaire, including 142 (32%) medical students, 107 (24%) radiology technologists, 105 (24%) radiography students, and 89 (20%) physicians. Of the participants, 245 (55%) were men. A total of 74 (84%) physicians and 51 (47%) radiology technologists had more than 5 years of experience. Eleven (12%) physicians and 44 (41%) radiology technologists had 1-4 years of experience, whereas the rest had less than 1 year of experience. Only 16% of participants attended training courses on a regular basis. However, 15% of the participants thought that they had excellent knowledge of radiation protection, whereas 18% admitted that they did not have sufficient knowledge. Sixty-two percent of the questions related to radiation protection awareness were answered correctly. Forty-five percent of the participants correctly answered questions related to doses from common radiologic examinations. Only 23% and 16% of participants were aware of the noncontrast chest CT and lumbar x-ray doses, respectively. Moreover, 35% and 24% of participants did not know that pelvic MRI and abdominal ultrasound do not contribute any radiation dose, respectively. Conclusion: The results showed a knowledge gap regarding radiation protection and dose levels; therefore, periodic refresher courses are recommended for healthcare workers in order to increase the level of awareness.

Knowledge of radiation exposure associated with common trauma imaging modalities among orthopaedic surgeons, emergency medicine physicians, and general surgeons in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Few contemporary studies have assessed physicians' knowledge of radiation exposure associated with common imaging studies, especially in trauma care. The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge of physicians involved in caring for trauma patients regarding the effective radiation doses of musculoskeletal (MSK) imaging studies routinely utilized in the trauma setting. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to United States orthopaedic surgery, general surgery, and emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. Participants were asked to estimate the radiation dose for common imaging modalities of the pelvis, lumbar spine, and lower extremity, in terms of chest X-ray (CXR) equivalents. Physician estimates were compared to the true effective radiation doses. Additionally, participants were asked to report the frequency of discussing radiation risk with patients. RESULTS: A total of 218 physicians completed the survey; 102 (46.8%) were EM physicians, 88 (40.4%) were orthopaedic surgeons, and 28 (12.8%) were general surgeons. Physicians underestimated the effective radiation doses of nearly all imaging modalities, most notably for pelvic computed tomaography (CT) (median 50 CXR estimation vs. 162 CXR actual) and lumbar CT (median 50 CXR estimation vs. 638 CXR actual). There was no difference between physician specialties regarding estimation accuracy (P=0.133). Physicians who regularly discussed radiation risks with patients more accurately estimated radiation exposure (P=0.007). CONCLUSION: The knowledge among orthopaedic and general surgeons and EM physicians regarding the radiation exposure associated with common MSK trauma imaging is lacking. Further investigation with larger scale studies is warranted, and additional education in this area may improve care.

Royal Decree 601/2019 on justification and optimization: Practical aspects.

The Royal Decree 601/2019 of 18th October is the result of the partial transposition into the Spanish legal system of the Euratom Directive 59/2013. This Royal Decree includes the mandates of the Directive related to the need to justify and optimize medical exposure, including that of asymptomatic people, proposal of stricter requirements regarding the information that must be provided to the patient, registration and notification of the doses of medical-radiological procedures, use of reference levels for diagnosis and the availability of dose-indicating devices. The article reviews the most relevant aspects and novelties related to the principles of justification, optimization, dose control and the obligations derived from the right to information and consent. This Royal Decree considers essential for radiologists to develop a high level of competence and a new list of responsibilities and functions, which are detailed and analysed in this article.

Eye Lens Radiation Dose to Nurses during Cardiac Interventional Radiology: An Initial Study.

Although interventional radiology (IVR) is preferred over surgical procedures because it is less invasive, it results in increased radiation exposure due to long fluoroscopy times and the need for frequent imaging. Nurses engaged in cardiac IVR receive the highest lens radiation doses among medical workers, after physicians. Hence, it is important to measure the lens exposure of IVR nurses accurately. Very few studies have evaluated IVR nurse lens doses using direct dosimeters. This study was conducted using direct eye dosimeters to determine the occupational eye dose of nurses engaged in cardiac IVR, and to identify simple and accurate methods to evaluate the lens dose received by nurses. Over 6 months, in a catheterization laboratory, we measured the occupational dose to the eyes (3 mm dose equivalent) and neck (0.07 mm dose equivalent) of nurses on the right and left sides. We investigated the relationship between lens and neck doses, and found a significant correlation. Hence, it may be possible to estimate the lens dose from the neck badge dose. We also evaluated the appropriate position (left or right) of eye dosimeters for IVR nurses. Although there was little difference between the mean doses to the right and left eyes, that to the right eye was slightly higher. In addition, we investigated whether it is possible to estimate doses received by IVR nurses from patient dose parameters. There were significant correlations between the measured doses to the neck and lens, and the patient dose parameters (fluoroscopy time and air kerma), implying that these parameters could be used to estimate the lens dose. However, it may be difficult to determine the lens dose of IVR nurses accurately from neck badges or patient dose parameters because of variation in the behaviors of nurses and the procedure type. Therefore, neck doses and patient dose parameters do not correlate well with the radiation eye doses of individual IVR nurses measured by personal eye dosimeters. For IVR nurses with higher eye doses, more accurate measurement of the radiation doses is required. We recommend that a lens dosimeter be worn near the eyes to measure the lens dose to IVR nurses accurately, especially those exposed to relatively high doses.

Evaluation of personal protective equipment use in healthcare workers exposed to ionizing radiation in a Portuguese university hospital.

Introduction: Increasing use of ionizing radiation in hospitals exposes healthcare workers to health risks, therefore dosimetric surveillance and anti-radiation personal protective equipment are essential. However, low perception of risk has a negative impact on compliance. Objectives: To qualitatively characterize exposure to ionizing radiation and the compliance with anti-radiation personal protective equipment and personal dosimeters by workers, at a university hospital in Portugal. To investigate the impact of attending health examinations or participating in training activities on this compliance. Methods: Cross-sectional study design administering a questionnaire constructed by the authors to all healthcare workers exposed to ionizing radiation (n = 708). Results: A total of 295 workers completed the questionnaire. They worked in 16 different services using eight different types of ionizing radiation-emitting equipment, the most common of which were fluoroscopes. Lead aprons and thyroid protectors were the anti-radiation personal protective equipment with greatest compliance (61.7 and 55.6%, respectively), while fewer respondents used protective glasses (8.1%) and lead gloves (0.7%). Regular use of a dosimeter was reported by 78.3% of workers and use was associated with participation in training and with attending health examinations. The most frequent reasons given for not wearing anti-radiation personal protective equipment were unavailability (glasses and gloves), presence of a protective barrier, and discomfort. The most common reason for not using a dosimeter was forgetting to do so. Conclusions: Workers who attended training and those who attended health examinations were more compliant with use of dosimeters, indicating that these are useful strategies for improving workers' compliance with radiation protection measures.

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.

A questionnaire survey on radiation protection among 282 medical staff from 26 endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments in Japan.

Background and aims: It is essential for endoscopists, technologists, and nurses to understand radiation protection. However, protective equipment usage is still low, and there is little awareness of radiation protection in practice. Methods: We conducted a questionnaire survey on radiation protection from January to February 2020. The participants were medical staff, including medical doctors, nurses, and radiological and endoscopy technician in endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments. The questionnaire included 14 multiple-choice questions divided among three parts: background, equipment, and knowledge. Results: We surveyed a total of 282 subjects from 26 institutions. There were 168 medical doctors (60%), 90 nurses (32%), and 24 technologists (9%). Although almost all staff members (99%) always wore a lead apron, only a few wore a thyroid collar (32%) and lead glasses (21%). The rate of wearing a radiation dosimeter was insufficient (69%), especially among doctors (52%). A few subjects knew the radiation exposure dose of each procedure (15%), and slightly over half had attended lectures on radiation protection (64%) and knew about the three principles of radiation protection (59%). Protection adherence did not differ by years of experience, knowledge of fluoroscopy, awareness of radiation exposure doses, or attendance at basic lectures on radiation protection. However, medical doctors who were aware of the radiation exposure dose of each procedure were significantly more likely to wear dosimeters than those who were not (p = 0.0008). Conclusion: Medical staff in endoscopy departments in Japan do not have enough radiation protection equipment or education.

Beliefs, Facilitating Factors, and Barriers in Using Personal Dosimeter among Medical Radiation Workers in a Middle-Income Asian Setting.

This qualitative study explores the medical radiation workers' (MRWs) beliefs with the support of the theory of planned behaviour's constructs regarding the use of personal dosimeters in order to identify the facilitating factors and barriers to practising good personal dose monitoring. The exploration was conducted through semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 63 MRWs from the public, private, and university hospitals. Belief statements from the informants were organized under the behavioural, normative, and control belief, as guided by the theory. A thematic analysis found that a majority of informants acknowledged the benefits of using dosimeters. However, several factors influenced the actual usage. The informants were hesitant to use the dosimeter as the loss of the device involved an expensive penalty. They also mentioned that delayed dosimeter supplies due to late budget approval in the hospitals and some other reasons had got them disconnected from the monitoring system. The workers' attitudes and social norms highly induced their dosimeter usage as well; some perceived themselves to be at low risk for high exposure to radiation, and forgetfulness was also mentioned as a reason for lack of adherence. Device physical factor influenced low dosimeter use too. This study highlighted some unique findings in Asian settings. A better understanding of the underlying reasons for the lack of dosimeter use will be useful in developing strategies to increase good practices in personal radiation monitoring.

Characterization of Small Dosimeters Used for Measurement of Eye Lens Dose for Medical Staff during Fluoroscopic Examination.

This study aimed to evaluate the property of small dosimeters used for measuring eye lens doses for medical staff during fluoroscopic examination. Dose linearity, energy dependence, and directional dependence of scattered X-rays were evaluated for small radiophotoluminescence glass dosimeters (RPLDs), those with a tin filter (Sn-RPLDs), and small optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs). These dosimeters were pasted on radioprotective glasses, and accumulated air kerma was obtained after irradiating the X-rays to a patient phantom. Strong correlations existed between fluoroscopic time and accumulated air kerma in all types of dosimeters. The energy dependence of Sn-RPLD and OSLD was smaller than that of RPLD. The relative dose value of the OSLD gradually decreased as the angle of the OSLD against the scattered X-rays was larger or lower than the right angle in the horizontal direction. The ranges of relative dose values of RPLD and Sn-RPLD were larger than that of OSLD in the vertical direction. The OSLDs showed lower doses than the RPLDs and Sn-RPLDs, especially on the right side of the radioprotective glasses. These results showed that RPLDs, Sn-RPLDs, and OSLDs had different dosimeter properties, and influence measured eye lens doses for the physician, especially on the opposite side of the patient.

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.

Medical doctors' awareness of radiation exposure in diagnostic radiology investigations in a South African academic institution.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic investigations using radiation have become a critical feature of medical practice in recent times. However, the possibility of doctors' underestimation of risks of over-exposure of patients to diagnostic radiation still warrants further evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To investigate doctors' awareness of diagnostic radiation exposure at Dr George Mukhari Academic Hospital, South Africa. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, analytical investigation of the awareness of doctors about radiation exposure in diagnostic radiology investigations. A cluster sampling technique was employed to recruit 217 participants. Consent and approval of the participants were sought and obtained before questionnaire administration during departmental meetings between October 2017 and March 2018. RESULTS: Of the participants, 80% had no formal training on radiation exposure and 33.8% of them correctly estimated natural background radiation. Correct estimates of the effective dose from a single-view abdominal X-ray (AXR) were expressed by 7.5%, quantity of radiation of a single-phase computed tomography (CT) abdomen by 30.3% and dosage from a two-view unilateral mammogram by 29.1% of the participants. More than 75% of participants agreed that children are more sensitive to radiation, but only 10.5% suggested medical termination of pregnancy for a woman who had CT abdomen and pelvis with contrast. Dosage and risk of inducing fatal cancer from common but more complex imaging procedures were poorly understood. Only the doctors of the radiology department showed a statistically significant (p < 0.0001) association with regards to their radiation awareness. CONCLUSION: Because of the high rate of poor awareness of radiation risks observed in this study, it is important to initiate, early in the medical curriculum for medical students, the need for a rotation in the Department of Radiology, similar to such rotations in other medical specialties.

The radiation safety education and the pain physicians' efforts to reduce radiation exposure.

BACKGROUND: C-arm fluoroscopy equipment is important for interventional pain management and can cause radiation injury to physicians and patients. We compared radiation safety education and efforts to reduce the radiation exposure of pain specialists. METHODS: A survey of 49 pain specialists was conducted anonymously in 2016. The questionnaire had 16 questions. That questionnaire was about radiation safety knowledge and efforts to reduce exposure. We investigated the correlation between radiation safety education and efforts of radiation protection. We compared the results from 2016 and a published survey from 2011. RESULTS: According to the 2016 survey, all respondents used C-arm fluoroscopy in pain interventions. Nineteen respondents (39%) had received radiation safety education. Physicians had insufficient knowledge about radiation safety. When the radiation safety education group and the non-education group are compared, there was no significant difference in efforts to reduce radiation exposure and radiation safety knowledge. When the 2011 and 2016 surveys were compared, the use of low dose mode (P = 0.000) and pulsed mode had increased significantly (P = 0.001). The number checking for damage to radiation protective garments (P = 0.000) and use of the dosimeter had also increased significantly (P = 0.009). But there was no significant difference in other efforts to reduce radiation exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Pain physicians seem to lack knowledge of radiation safety and the number of physicians receiving radiation safety education is low. According to this study, education does not lead to practice. Therefore, pain physicians should receive regular radiation safety education and the education should be mandatory.

Eye lens radiation exposure of the medical staff performing interventional urology procedures with an over-couch X-ray tube.

The purpose of this work was to estimate the eye lens radiation exposure of the medical staff during interventional urology procedures. The measurements were carried out for six medical staff members performing 33 fluoroscopically-guided procedures. All procedures were performed with the X-ray tube positioned over the couch. The dose equivalents (Hp(0.07)) were measured at the eye level using optically stimulated luminescent (OSL) dosimeters and at the chest level with OSL dosimeters placed over the protective apron. The ratio of the dose measured close to the eye lens and on the chest was determined. The annual eye lens dose was estimated based on the workload in the service. For the physician and the instrumentalist nurse, the eye to chest dose ratios were 0.9±0.4 and 2.6±1.6 (k = 2), respectively. The average doses per procedure received by the eye lens were 78±24 µSv and 38±18 µSv, respectively. The eye lens dose per DAP was 8.4±17.5 µSv/(Gy·cm2) for the physician and 4.1±8.7 µSv/(Gy·cm2) for the instrumentalist nurse. The results indicate that the eye lens to chest dose ratio greatly varies according to the staff function and that the dose equivalent measured by the personal dosimeter worn on the chest may underestimate the eye lens dose of some medical staff members.