An investigation into the knowledge, attitudes, and practice of radiation protection in interventional radiology and cardiac catheter-laboratories.

ABSTRACT

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.