A Multimedia Strategy to Integrate Introductory Broad-Based Radiation Science Education in US Medical Schools.

US physicians in multiple specialties who order or conduct radiological procedures lack formal radiation science education and thus sometimes order procedures of limited benefit or fail to order what is necessary. To this end, a multidisciplinary expert group proposed an introductory broad-based radiation science educational program for US medical schools. Suggested preclinical elements of the curriculum include foundational education on ionizing and nonionizing radiation (eg, definitions, dose metrics, and risk measures) and short- and long-term radiation-related health effects as well as introduction to radiology, radiation therapy, and radiation protection concepts. Recommended clinical elements of the curriculum would impart knowledge and practical experience in radiology, fluoroscopically guided procedures, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and identification of patient subgroups requiring special considerations when selecting specific ionizing or nonionizing diagnostic or therapeutic radiation procedures. Critical components of the clinical program would also include educational material and direct experience with patient-centered communication on benefits of, risks of, and shared decision making about ionizing and nonionizing radiation procedures and on health effects and safety requirements for environmental and occupational exposure to ionizing and nonionizing radiation. Overarching is the introduction to evidence-based guidelines for procedures that maximize clinical benefit while limiting unnecessary risk. The content would be further developed, directed, and integrated within the curriculum by local faculties and would address multiple standard elements of the Liaison Committee on Medical Education and Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Operationalizing Community Assessment Results to Enhance Preparedness for a Radiological Emergency.

OBJECTIVE: A radiological emergency such as the detonation of a radiological dispersal device would have catastrophic health, environmental, and economic consequences. Community assessments can provide useful information about radiological and other emergency preparedness at the household level. Tools such as logic models can be applied to link data collected in a community assessment to planned activities and targeted outcomes. This study sought to answer how public health departments can use the results of a community assessment to improve preparedness for radiological and other types of emergencies and to present a sample logic model demonstrating how questions asked in a community assessment can be used to drive intended outcomes. DESIGN: Surveys were fielded in 2019 to professionals with experience in radiological emergency preparedness, state and local health and emergency management, and journalism. Questions included the role of health departments in radiological emergency preparedness, the operationalization of results from a community assessment for preparedness, and information sharing in a radiological emergency. Descriptive statistics and a modified framework approach were used for open-ended questions. RESULTS: Nearly three-fourths of state/local officials reported that it would be at least somewhat difficult (73%; 11 of 15 state/local officials) for a local health department to operationalize the results of a community health assessment for radiological emergency preparedness. Potential barriers included competing priorities, lack of funds, and limited staff. Resources such as pretested communication materials, tailored messaging, and technical tools and training can assist health departments and emergency management agencies in using the information collected from a community assessment. CONCLUSIONS: To address implementation challenges in operationalizing the results of a community assessment, officials can use tools such as logic models to illustrate how the information gathered from a community health assessment will create an intended preparedness outcome and to advocate for funds for this type of assessment.

The three R's of reasonable in radiological protection: relationships, rationale, and resources.

Central to applying the principle of optimisation in the system of radiological protection is the evaluation of what level of radiation exposure should be considered 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA), after taking into account the prevailing circumstances. Determining what is 'reasonable' is an abstract, although somewhat intuitive concept with many potential interpretations depending on both the situation and those involved, whether individuals or organisations. There are common themes in the types of considerations that need to be addressed to determine 'reasonableness' regardless of the exposure situation. However, despite the consistent and agreeable nature of these themes, there remains a gap in how to apply them in real situations. For example, without measurable goalposts (or a clear process for setting such goalposts) for determining what constitutes ALARA, we can find ourselves misinterpreting the optimisation process as keeping exposures 'as low as possible'. We propose herein, by consolidating and building on existing ideas, an easily understandable and actionable 'reasonableness' framework. This simple, yet broadly applicable tool is intended to help radiation protection experts in the systematic, deliberative, and collaborative reflection on all of the factors that make up 'reasonable' before making a decision-whether it be a proposed medical treatment or clean-up of a contaminated site. Each process execution and decision itself will necessarily retain the complexity of the prevailing circumstance. The proposed 'Rs' of Reasonable represent Relationships (stakeholders, empathy, and trust), Rationale (contextual, technical, and ethical), and Resources (technological, financial, and time).

Developing an instrument to measure household radiological emergency preparedness using the Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) methodology: An evidence-informed approach.

INTRODUCTION: Community assessments to measure emergency preparedness can inform policies, planning, and communication to the public to improve readiness and response if an emergency was to occur. Public health and emergency management officials need an effective assessment tool to measure community preparedness for a radiological emergency. METHODS: The authors created a survey instrument to collect data on household radiological emergency preparedness that could be implemented using the Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) methodology, developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. To inform the development of the tool, the authors examined existing CASPER surveys, focusing on identifying best practices for creating a survey instrument, as well as analyzing the results of a survey of radiation preparedness experts and state/local health and emergency management officials. RESULTS: The developed survey tool includes 32 questions covering four domains: communication in an emergency, preparedness planning, physical/behavioral health, and demographics. The instrument captures information related to identified barriers in communicating in a radiological emergency as well as self-reported behaviors that could potentially be influenced through awareness and education. DISCUSSION: Using the proposed survey instrument and following the existing rapid assessment methodology provided by CASPER, public health and emergency management agencies can collect valuable information on the radiation preparedness needs of their communities, which can then be used to improve household readiness for an emergency.

Prioritizing Communication About Radiation Risk Reduction in the United States: Results from a Multi-criteria Decision Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The lack of radiation knowledge among the general public continues to be a challenge for building communities prepared for radiological emergencies. This study applied a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to the results of an expert survey to identify priority risk reduction messages and challenges to increasing community radiological emergency preparedness. METHODS: Professionals with expertise in radiological emergency preparedness, state/local health and emergency management officials, and journalists/journalism academics were surveyed following a purposive sampling methodology. An MCDA was used to weight criteria of importance in a radiological emergency, and the weighted criteria were applied to topics such as sheltering-in-place, decontamination, and use of potassium iodide. Results were reviewed by respondent group and in aggregate. RESULTS: Sheltering-in-place and evacuation plans were identified as the most important risk reduction measures to communicate to the public. Possible communication challenges during a radiological emergency included access to accurate information; low levels of public trust; public knowledge about radiation; and communications infrastructure failures. CONCLUSIONS: Future assessments for community readiness for a radiological emergency should include questions about sheltering-in-place and evacuation plans to inform risk communication.

Communicating Radiation Risk: The Power of Planned, Persuasive Messaging.

Every day, health physicists and physicians are expected to communicate effectively with concerned people, but rarely (if ever) are they given training on how to effectively communicate. In an age of social media, this paper presents the relevance of teachings from an ancient Greek philosopher. Aristotle's Rhetoric is still considered one of the most influential works on persuasive messaging. He puts the onus of effective communications on the people with the "true" and "just" information to communicate that information clearly to the audience. By communicating with intention-using the persuasive appeals of ethos, pathos, logos, and storytelling-radiation professionals can speak to their expertise in radiation science, while adapting their instructions, presentations, and communication styles to meet the needs of each type of audience: from scientists to concerned citizens, from doctors to first responders, and beyond.

U.S. EPA response to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident.

During the spring of 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used its national radiation monitoring and sampling system, RadNet, to detect, identify, and inform the public about radioactive material in the United States resulting from Japan's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant release. The RadNet system monitors ambient air, drinking water, precipitation, and pasteurized milk for radionuclides. To supplement its existing stationary (fixed) continuous air monitoring system, EPA deployed additional air monitors to Saipan, Guam, and locations in the western United States. The Agency also accelerated the regular quarterly sampling of milk and drinking water and collected an additional round of samples. For two months, staff located at EPA's Headquarters Emergency Operations Center, west coast regional offices, and National Air and Radiation Environmental Lab worked seven days a week to handle the increased radiochemical sample analysis from air filters, precipitation, drinking water, and milk; provide interagency scientific input; and answer press and public inquiries. EPA's data was consistent with what was expected from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant release. The levels of radioactivity were so low that the readings from the near-real-time RadNet air monitors stayed within normal background ranges. Detailed sample analyses were needed to identify the radionuclides associated with the release. Starting at the end of April and continuing through May 2011, levels of radioactive material decreased as expected.