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.

Radiographers' perceptions of the experiences of patients with dementia attending the radiology department.

BACKGROUND: Patients with dementia frequently present to the Radiology Department. However, stigmas have been recorded amongst radiographers surrounding imaging persons with dementia (PwD). This study aimed to investigate the impact of PwD attending the Radiology Department for imaging and the resultant effects to all patients, radiographers, and the Department from the perspectives of the examining radiographer. METHODS: A paper-based questionnaire of radiographers' perceptions and experiences of individual examinations 'termed an interaction form' was created and made available in a public hospital in Ireland for a period of eight weeks. Radiographers completed the interaction form collecting data regarding individual imaging examinations of PwD. The form comprised sixteen closed and one open-ended question on the radiographers' individual perspectives of PwDs' abilities and distress levels, carers and comforters and their role in the examination, what the radiographer found helpful in the interaction, and any adverse events. Data were analysed using a combination of descriptive analysis and thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-three interaction forms were completed by the participating radiographers. The modality most commonly represented in the survey was general X-ray (58%). Radiographers reported 84% of examinations for PwD required extra time, with 27% of examinations required repeat imaging and 69% of patients appeared distressed. A carer helped facilitate the completion of 77% of examinations. Qualitative data indicated that distractive and communicative techniques were used by radiographers to make the patient feel more comfortable and help with examination success. CONCLUSION: PwD often require more time for radiological examinations, they often need repeat imaging and re-scheduling of an examination at a more appropriate time. These factors need to be considered when scheduling and performing radiological examinations. Patient distress was frequently encountered, this area may benefit from further research and dedicated practitioner training which could help drive improvements in patient experience.

Expansion of Typical Values for Paediatric Patients in Ireland and Comparison with Published DRLs - Experiences of a Single Institution.

INTRODUCTION: To reduce the risks involved with ionising radiation exposure, typical values (TVs) and diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) have been established to help keep radiation doses 'as low as reasonably practicable. TVs/DRLs provide standardised radiation dose metrics that can be used for comparative purposes. However, for paediatrics, such values should consider the size of the child instead of their age. This study aimed to establish and compare paediatric TVs for chest, abdomen and pelvis radiography. METHODS: Study methods followed processes for establishing paediatric DRLs as outlined by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA). Kerma-area product (KAP) values, excluding rejected images, were retrospectively acquired from the study institution's Picture Archiving and Communications System (PACS). Paediatric patients were categorised into the following weight-based groupings (5 to <15 kg, 15 to <30 kg, 30 to <50 kg, 50 to 80 kg) and stratified based on the examination that was performed (chest, abdomen, and pelvis), and where it was performed (the different X-ray rooms). Anonymised data were inputted into Microsoft Excel for analysis. Median and 3rd quartile KAP values were reported together with graphical illustrations. RESULTS: Data from 407 X-ray examinations were analysed. For the previously identified weight categories (5 to <15 kg, 15 to <30 kg, 30 to <50 kg, 50 to 80 kg), TVs for the chest were 0.10, 0.19, 0.37 and 0.53 dGy.cm2, respectively. For the abdomen 0.39, 1.04, 3.51 and 4.05 dGy.cm2 and for the pelvis 0.43, 0.87, 3.50 and 7.58 dGy.cm2. Between X-ray rooms TVs varied against the institutional TVs by -60 to 119 % (chest), -50 to 103 % (abdomen) and -14 and 24 %% (pelvis). CONCLUSION: TVs in this study follow established trends with patient weight and examination type and are comparable with published literature. Variations do exist between individual examination rooms and reasons are multifactorial. Given that age and size do not perfectly correlate further work should be undertaken around weight-based TVs/DRLs in the paediatric setting.