Radiation Exposure Prevention Strategies in Diagnostic Imaging: A Review of Nursing and Radiology Roles
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.4428Keywords:
Radiation exposure, diagnostic imaging, prevention strategies, nursing roles, radiology roles, ALARA principleAbstract
Radiation exposure in diagnostic imaging poses significant risks to both patients and healthcare providers, making it imperative to implement effective prevention strategies. Nurses and radiology professionals play crucial roles in this preventive framework, collaborating to ensure that radiation is utilized safely and judiciously. Key strategies include adhering to the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable), which encourages minimizing radiation doses while still obtaining quality diagnostic images. Education and training programs are essential for both nursing staff and radiologists, enhancing their understanding of radiation safety protocols and promoting effective communication with patients about the importance of informed consent and the risks associated with imaging procedures. These proactive measures serve to safeguard patient health and foster a culture of safety within healthcare settings. In addition to direct patient care, nurses and radiology professionals are essential in developing institutional policies that prioritize radiation safety. Regular audits and assessments of imaging practices help identify areas for improvement and ensure compliance with national and international safety standards. Furthermore, technological advancements, such as dose-monitoring software and advanced imaging techniques, are important tools that can be integrated into practice to enhance safety. Interdisciplinary collaboration is key in promoting a unified approach to radiation exposure prevention, allowing for shared knowledge and resources. By focusing on both educational initiatives and policy development, the nursing and radiology workforce can significantly reduce the risks associated with radiation exposure in diagnostic imaging, ultimately improving patient outcomes and enhancing the overall quality of care.
References
1. Koukorava C, Farah J, Struelens L, et al. Efficiency of radiation protection equipment in interventional radiology: a systematic Monte Carlo study of eye lens and whole body doses. J Radiol Prot. 2014;34:509–528.
2. Efstathopoulos EP, Pantos I, Andreou M, et al. Occupational radiation doses to the extremities and the eyes in interventional radiology and cardiology procedures. Br J Radiol. 2011;84:70–77.
3. Perisinakis K, Solomou G, Stratakis J, Damilakis J. Data and methods to assess occupational exposure to personnel involved in cardiac catheterization procedures. Phys Med. 2016;32:386–392.
4. Worgul BV, Kundiev Y, Likhtarev I, Sergienko N, Wegener A, Medvedovsky CP. Use of subjective and nonsubjective methodologies to evaluate lens radiation damage in exposed populations ‐ an overview. Radiat Environ Biophys. 1996;35:137–144.
5. Boal TJ, Pinak M. Dose limits to the lens of the eye: International Basic Safety Standards and related guidance. Ann ICRP. 2015;44:112–117.
6. Baumann F, Katzen BT, Carelsen B, Diehm N, Benenati JF, Peña CS. The effect of realtime monitoring on dose exposure to staff within an interventional radiology setting. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2015;38:1105–1111.
7. Haga Y, Chida K, Kaga Y, Sota M, Meguro T, Zuguchi M. Occupational eye dose in interventional cardiology procedures. Scient Rep (Nature Publisher Group). 2017;7:1.
8. Jacob S, Boveda S, Bar O, et al. Interventional cardiologists and risk of radiation‐induced cataract: results of a French multicenter observational study. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167:1843–1847.
9. Ciraj‐Bjelac O, Rehani M, Minamoto A, Sim KH, Liew HB, Vano E. Radiation‐induced eye lens changes and risk for cataract in interventional cardiology. Cardiology. 2012;123:168–171.
10. Sandblom V, Mai T, Almén A, et al. Evaluation of the impact of a system for real‐time visualisation of occupational radiation dose rate during fluoroscopically guided procedures. J Radiol Prot. 2013;33:693–702.
11. Hall EJ, Giaccia AJ. Radiobiology for the Radiologist, 7th ed Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
12. Wilson‐Stewart K. A survey of radiation protection utilization and accessibility within Australian cardiac angiography laboratories. J Radiol Nurs. 2017;36:112–116.
13. Butcher RL, Gaggini R, Thoirs K. Does wearing a real‐time visual dosimeter reduce the personal radiation dose for interventional radiology nurses? An observational comparative study. J Radiol Nurs. 2015;34:137–142.
14. Vano E. Basis for standards: ICRP activities. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015;165:30–33.
15. Vano E, Kleiman NJ, Duran A, Rehani MM, Echeverri D, Cabrera M. Radiation cataract risk in interventional cardiology personnel. Radiat Res. 2010;174:490–495.
16. Domienik J, Brodecki M, Rusicka D. A study of the dose distribution in the region of the eye lens and extremities for staff working in interventional cardiology. Radiat Meas. 2012;47:130–138.
17. Sailer AM, Schurink GWH, Bol ME, et al. Occupational radiation exposure during endovascular aortic repair. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2015;38:827–832.
18. Dave JK. Why is the X‐Ray tube usually located underneath the patient instead of above the patient for interventional fluoroscopic procedures? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207:W24.
19. Racadio J, Nachabe R, Carelsen B, et al. Effect of real‐time radiation dose feedback on pediatric interventional radiology staff radiation exposure. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25:119–126.
20. Omar A, Kadesjo N, Palmgren C, Marteinsdottir M, Segerdahl T, Fransson A. Assessment of the occupational eye lens dose for clinical staff in interventional radiology, cardiology and neuroradiology. J Radiol Prot. 2017;37:145–159.
21. Mahesh M. Radiation Dose Management for Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Medical Procedures, Vol 39. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2012:5789–5790.
22. Rühm W, Woloschak GE, Shore RE, et al. Dose and dose‐rate effects of ionizing radiation: a discussion in the light of radiological protection. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2015;54:379–401.
23. Haqqani OP, Agarwal PK, Halin NM, Iafrati MD. Defining the radiation “scatter cloud” in the interventional suite. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:1339–1345.
24. Omar A, Marteinsdottir M, Kadesjo N, Fransson A. On the feasibility of utilizing active personal dosimeters worn on the chest to estimate occupational eye lens dose in x‐ray angiography. J Radiol Prot. 2015;35:271–284.
25. Chohan MO, Sandoval D, Buchan A, Murray‐Krezan C, Taylor CL. Cranial radiation exposure during cerebral catheter angiography. J Neurointerv Surg. 2014;6:633–636.
26. McLean D, Hadaya D, Tse J. Eye dose to staff involved in interventional and procedural fluoroscopy. J Phys Conf Ser. 2016;694:012054.
27. Rühm W, Azizova TV, Bouffler SD, et al. Dose‐rate effects in radiation biology and radiation protection. Ann ICRP. 2016;45:262–279.
28. Gilligan P, Lynch J, Eder H, et al. Assessment of clinical occupational dose reduction effect of a new interventional cardiology shield for radial access combined with a scatter reducing drape: shield/drape combination reduces staff doses. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86:935–940.
29. Topol EJ, Teirstein PS. Textbook of Interventional Cardiology E‐Book, 7th ed Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2015.
30. Antic V, Ciraj‐Bjelac O, Rehani M, Aleksandric S, Arandjic D, Ostojic M. Eye lens dosimetry in interventional cardiology: results of staff dose measurements and link to patient dose levels. Radiat Protect Dosimetry. 2013;154:276–284.
31. Korir GK, Ochieng BO, Wambani JS, Korir IK, Jowi CY. Radiation exposure in interventional procedures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2012;152:339–344.
32. James RF, Wainwright KJ, Kanaan HA, et al. Analysis of occupational radiation exposure during cerebral angiography utilizing a new real time radiation dose monitoring system. J Neurointerv Surg. 2015;7:503–508.
33. Pradhan A, Lee J, Kim J. On the scenario of passive dosimeters in personnel monitoring: relevance to diagnostic radiology and fluoroscopy‐based interventional cardiology. J Med Phys. 2016;41:81–84.
34. Dumonceau JM, Garcia‐Fernandez F, Verdun F, et al. Radiation protection in digestive endoscopy: European society of digestive endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2012;44:408–424.
35. Implications for Occupational Radiation Protection of the New Dose Limit for the Lens of the Eye. In: Agency IAE, ed. IAEA_TECDOC. Vol 1731. Vienna; 2014.
36. Almasri HY, Kakinohana Y, Yogi T. Occupational radiation monitoring at a large medical center in Japan. Radiol Phys Technol. 2014;7:271–276.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
