SIR Flat CAP (Safety In Radiology - Flat-Packed Compact Airborne Precaution): A Low-Cost, Portable, Negative-Pressure Isolation Barrier Shield for Protecting Frontline Healthcare Workers.

Introduction Multiple barrier shields have been described since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of these are bulky and designed for use in the main anesthetic or radiology departments. We developed a portable, negative-pressure barrier shield designed specifically for portable ultrasound examinations. A novel supine cough generation model was developed together with a reverse qualitative fit test to simulate real-world aerosol droplet generation and dispersion for evaluating the effectiveness of the barrier shield. We report the technical specifications of this design, named "SIR Flat CAP" from Safety In Radiology - Flat-packed Compact Airborne Precaution, as well as its performance in reducing the spread of droplets and aerosols.  Methods The barrier shield was constructed using 1 mm acrylic panels, clear packing tape, foam double-sided tape, and surgical drapes. Negative pressure was provided via hospital wall suction. A supine cough generation model was developed to simulate cough droplet dispersal. A reverse qualitative fit test was used to assess for airborne transmission of microdroplets. Results The supine cough generation model was able to replicate similar results to previously reported supine human cough generation dispersion. The use of the barrier shield with negative-pressure suction prevented the escape of visible droplets, and no airborne microdroplets were detected by reverse qualitative fit testing from the containment area. Conclusions The barrier shield significantly reduces the escape of visible and airborne droplets from the containment area, providing an additional layer of protection to front-line sonographers.

Establishment of institutional diagnostic reference level for computed tomography with automated dose-tracking software.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to establish institutional diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) by summarising doses collected across the five computed tomography (CT) system in our institution. METHODS: CT dose data of 15940 patients were collected retrospectively from May 2015 to October 2015 in five institutional scanners. The mean, 75th percentile and 90th percentile of the dose spread were calculated according to anatomic region. The common CT examinations such as head, chest, combined abdomen/pelvis (A/P), and combined chest/abdomen/pelvis (C/A/P) were reviewed. Distribution of CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP) and effective dose (ED) were extracted from the data for single-phasic and multiphasic examinations. RESULTS: The institutional DRL for our CT units were established as mean (50th percentile) of CTDIvol (mGy), DLP (mGy.cm) and ED (mSv) for single and multiphasic studies using the dose-tracking software. In single phasic examination, Head: (49.0 mGy), (978.0 mGy.cm), (2.4 mSv) respectively; Chest: (6.0 mGy), (254.0 mGy.cm), (4.9 mSv) respectively; CT A/P (10.0 mGy), (514.0 mGy.cm), (8.9 mSv) respectively; CT C/A/P (10.0 mGy), (674.0 mGy.cm), (11.8 mSv) respectively. In multiphasic studies: Head (45.0 mGy), (1822.0 mGy.cm), (5.0 mSv) respectively; Chest (8.0 mGy), (577.0 mGy.cm), (10.0 mSv) respectively; CT A/P: (10.0 mGy), (1153.0 mGy.cm), (20.2 mSv) respectively; CT C/A/P: (11.0 mGy), (1090.0 mGy.cm), (19.2 mSv) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The reported metrics offer a variety of information that institutions can use for quality improvement activities. The variations in dose between scanners suggest a large potential for optimisation of radiation dose.