Better safe than so ray: national survey of radiation protection amongst interventional radiology trainees in the United Kingdom
Rattachement africain : gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVE: To establish the provision and use of radiation personal protective equipment (PPE) and dosimetry amongst UK interventional radiology (IR) trainees and highlight areas of improvement in order to enhance the radiation safety. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was designed by members of the British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) trainee committee via survey monkey and distributed to UK IR trainees via the BSIR membership mailing list, local representatives and Twitter. The survey was open from 04/01/2021 to 20/02/2021. Only IR trainees in years ST4 and above were included. RESULTS: Of the 73 respondents, 62 qualified for analysis. Respondents (81% male) spent a median of 5.5 sessions (half day list) per week in the angiography suite and 58% (n=36) had difficulty finding appropriately sized lead aprons at least once a week. Overall 53% (n=33) had concerns about their radiation PPE. Furthermore 56% of trainees (n=35) experienced back pain among other symptoms attributed to wearing the lead aprons available to them. 77% (n=48) regularly wore lead glasses. For trainees requiring prescription glasses (n=22) overfit goggles were provided however 17 (77%) of these trainees felt the goggles compromised their ability to perform the procedure. Eye and finger dosimeters were used by 50% and 52% of respondents respectively. Compliance with body dosimetry was 99%. CONCLUSION: Provision of radiation PPE and dose monitoring for IR trainees is suboptimal, particularly access to adequate eye protection or suitably fitting leads. Based on the findings of this survey, recommendations have been made to promote the safety and radiation awareness of IR trainees. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Radiation protection practices for IR trainees nationally are poor. Provision of suitable eye protection and well fitting lead body protection is low.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Better safe than so ray: national survey of radiation protection amongst interventional radiology trainees in the United Kingdom
- Date Crossref
- 26/07/2023
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
EES Research (United Kingdom) pays non établi dans la noticeEntreprise
-
Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
The Royal Free Hospital pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
University College London pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Freeman Hospital pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
UK National Interventional Radiology Trainee Research (UNITE) Collaborative pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
-
Peninsula Radiology Academy pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, EES Research (United Kingdom) et Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, avec 9 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.