Paediatric imaging radiation dose awareness and use of referral guidelines amongst radiology practitioners and radiographers.

Jonathan L Portelli,Louise Rainford,Jonathan P Mcnulty,Paul Bezzina

doi:10.1007/s13244-015-0449-2

Jonathan L Portelli, Louise Rainford + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-015-0449-2

Copy DOI

Abstract

ObjectivesThe objectives are to investigate radiology practitioners’ and radiographers’ radiation dose awareness and use of referral guidelines for paediatric imaging examinations.MethodsA prospective cross-sectional survey was conducted amongst radiology practitioners and radiographers working at a primary paediatric referral centre in Malta. Part of the survey asked participants to indicate the typical effective dose (ED) for several commonly performed paediatric imaging examinations, answer five true-false statements about radiation protection principles, and specify their use of referral guidelines for paediatric imaging.ResultsThe return of 112 questionnaires provided a response rate of 66.7 %. Overall, imaging practitioners demonstrated poor awareness of radiation doses associated with several paediatric imaging examinations, with only 20 % providing the correct ED estimate for radiation-based examinations. Nearly all participants had undertaken radiation protection training, but the type and duration of training undertaken varied. When asked about the use of referral guidelines for paediatric imaging, 77.3 % claimed that they ‘did not’ or ‘were not sure’ if they made use of them.ConclusionsPoor awareness of radiation doses associated with paediatric imaging examinations and the non-use of referral guidelines may impede imaging practitioners’ role in the justification and optimisation of paediatric imaging examinations. Education and training activities to address such shortcomings are recommended.Key Points• Imaging practitioners demonstrated poor radiation dose awareness for 5 paediatric imaging examinations.• Most radiology practitioners and radiographers were ‘not sure’ or ‘did not’ use referral guidelines.• Imaging practitioners generally considered previously undertaken paediatric imaging examinations.• Some imaging practitioners had not undertaken training in radiation protection for 10 years.• Training activities to address imaging practitioners’ poor radiation dose awareness are encouraged.

Highlights

Medical imaging (MI) is an essential tool in clinical medicine that provides great benefits and may even be lifesaving [1]
While there is considerable uncertainty and debate about the actual lifetime cancer risks associated with low dose radiation exposure (
The sole difference was that the questionnaire addressed to radiology practitioners asked about ‘performed and/or reported’ paediatric MI examinations while that addressed to radiographers asked about ‘performed’ MI examinations, since the latter do not report paediatric MI examinations at the hospital studied

Summary

Introduction

Medical imaging (MI) is an essential tool in clinical medicine that provides great benefits and may even be lifesaving [1]. Since most MI examinations involve an exposure to ionising radiation, there are growing concerns that the increased demand and use of MI may cause late adverse effects, when performed in young patients. It is important that imaging practitioners, radiologists and radiographers, fulfil their responsibilities in maximising the benefit-to-risk ratio for each medical radiation exposure, as stipulated by national and international regulations [7, 8]. Apart from confirming that each MI examination requested is the most responsive and appropriate examination for the child at that point in time (justification), it is important that imaging practitioners ‘childsize’ (optimise) each MI examination according to the child’s physical characteristics and/or underlying clinical indications [9,10,11,12]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion