Personal dosimeter utilisation among South African interventionalists. (1st June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rose, André; Uebel, Kerry; Rae, William Ian Duncombe
• Is Part Of: Journal of radiological protection. Volume 41:Number 2(2021)
• Page Start: 326
• Page End: 336
• Publication Date: 2021-06-01
• Subjects: radiation protection -- radiation monitoring -- personal dosimeter devices -- interventionalists -- fluoroscopy -- dosimeter; Radiation -- Safety measures -- Periodicals; Health Physics -- Periodicals; Radiation Monitoring -- Periodicals; Radiation Protection -- Periodicals; Rayonnement -- Sécurité -- Mesures -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Fulltext; Internet Resource; Periodical; 363.179905
• DOI: 10.1088/1361-6498/abf950
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0952-4746

Abstract

Abstract: Ionising radiation (IR) is increasingly being used in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and offers increased benefits to patients but poses an increased occupational health risk to operators. The consistent use and monitoring of radiation health care workers' dosimeters is an important part of the process for ensuring adequate monitoring and control of IR in the workplace. There is however often inconsistent dosimeter utilisation among these workers. The aim of this study was to report on the dosimeter utilisation and dosimetry practices in South African interventionalists. We conducted a survey and did in-depth and group interviews to evaluate dosimetry practices and the factors influencing these practices. We used STATA 15 to do a descriptive analysis of the quantitative data. A thematic analysis of the qualitative data was done using a deductive and inductive approach. There were 108 respondents (35 radiologists, 41 adult cardiologists, 32 paediatric cardiologists). The majority overall (65.8%), and in each category were males. The median age was 44 (interquartile range (IQR) 31–66)) and the median years worked with fluoroscopy was 10 years (IQR 1–32). Overall interventionalists (55%) ranked their perceived occupation risk as 2/10. Thirteen per cent of all interventionalists reported never using a personal dosimeter (PD), 58% reported wearing it >70% of the time. Inconsistent and inappropriate use of PDs emerged strongly from the qualitative data. There was poor dosimeter utilisation in this study. Participants were not aware of the role of medical physics departments. Evaluation of dosimetry practices as a means of monitoring and improving radiation safety in the catheterisation laboratory must be improved to create an improved culture of radiation safety and protection.