Radiography (London, England : 1995) · 2023
Radiation protection measures used in Portuguese interventional radiology departments: A national survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pimenta A, Azevedo L, Ramos I, Santos J
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to characterise radiation protection (RP) measures used in interventional radiology (IR) departments in Portugal with respect to European and national recommendations.
METHODS: An online national survey was created to characterise the fluoroscopy technology as well as analyse the frequency of body fluoroscopy-guided intervention procedures (FGIP), RP education and training of the staff, and RP measures used daily.
RESULTS: In Portugal, most equipment for FGIP are single-sourced and have a flat panel detector (70%). The most commonly FGIP are percutaneous biliary drainage, percutaneous arterial and venous thrombolysis/thrombectomy, arteriovenous malformations embolization, and percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty for arteriovenous fistulas. Only a few staff members had received postgraduate education and training in RP (30%), with most nurses having not received RP education and training (40%). Some of the recommended RP measures lacked harmonisation. Additionally, >50% of the IR departments do not consider examination dose values to identify patients eligible for tissue reactions follow-up.
CONCLUSION: This is the first study to examine the characteristics of IR departments in Portugal. We observed a lack of RP education and training among staff members; further, there was a need to update some RP measures in some IR departments according to the recommendations.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Our findings will be presented to the participating IR departments in order to update and promote RP best practices. Moreover, our findings will be presented to the national societies of the different professional groups in order to inform strategies for harmonising RP education and training of the staff.
METHODS: An online national survey was created to characterise the fluoroscopy technology as well as analyse the frequency of body fluoroscopy-guided intervention procedures (FGIP), RP education and training of the staff, and RP measures used daily.
RESULTS: In Portugal, most equipment for FGIP are single-sourced and have a flat panel detector (70%). The most commonly FGIP are percutaneous biliary drainage, percutaneous arterial and venous thrombolysis/thrombectomy, arteriovenous malformations embolization, and percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty for arteriovenous fistulas. Only a few staff members had received postgraduate education and training in RP (30%), with most nurses having not received RP education and training (40%). Some of the recommended RP measures lacked harmonisation. Additionally, >50% of the IR departments do not consider examination dose values to identify patients eligible for tissue reactions follow-up.
CONCLUSION: This is the first study to examine the characteristics of IR departments in Portugal. We observed a lack of RP education and training among staff members; further, there was a need to update some RP measures in some IR departments according to the recommendations.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Our findings will be presented to the participating IR departments in order to update and promote RP best practices. Moreover, our findings will be presented to the national societies of the different professional groups in order to inform strategies for harmonising RP education and training of the staff.