Radiation Safety Compliance and Protective Practices Among Radiologic Technologists
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.4664Keywords:
Radiologic technologists, radiation safety, protective practices, ionizing radiation, NCRP, shieldingAbstract
Radiologic technologists play a crucial role in healthcare by utilizing diagnostic imaging technologies to aid in patient care. Given the inherent risks associated with ionizing radiation exposure, adherence to radiation safety protocols is paramount to ensure the well-being of both patients and healthcare professionals. Compliance with regulations set forth by agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) is fundamental. Radiologic technologists must remain vigilant in implementing best practices, including limiting radiation exposure through proper shielding and distance management, regular equipment maintenance, and consistent training in radiation safety measures. Their proactive approach to safety not only minimizes risks but also reinforces the credibility of the radiologic profession. In addition to regulatory compliance, fostering a culture of safety within the healthcare environment is essential for radiologic technologists. This entails engaging in continuous education and training, staying updated with the latest safety guidelines, and participating in peer reviews to promote shared accountability. Protective practices, such as the use of lead aprons, protective shields, and personal dosimetry badges, are critical in mitigating unnecessary radiation exposure. Regular audits and assessments of workplace practices can further enhance safety measures and enable technologists to identify and address potential hazards promptly. By prioritizing safety compliance and protective practices, radiologic technologists can effectively safeguard their health and that of their patients while delivering high-quality diagnostic care.
References
1. Ahmed, S.K., 2024, ‘The pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research’, Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health 2, 100051.
2. Dlamini, L. & Kekana, M., 2021, ‘Perceptions of radiographers regarding establishing a self-regulatory body for radiation safety in Eswatini’, Radiography 27(2), 627–632.
3. Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V.L., 2011, Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 2nd edn., Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
4. Fusch, P.I. & Ness, L.R., 2019, ‘Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research’, The Qualitative Report 20(9), 1408–1416.
5. Abuzaid, M., Elshami, W., Shawki, M. & Salama, D., 2019, ‘Assessment of compliance to radiation safety and protection at the radiology department’, Iranian Journal of Radiation Research 17, 439–446.
6. Kamara, B.M.A., Okoye, P.C. & Omubo-Pepple, V.B., 2013, ‘Radiation safety awareness among patients and radiographers in three hospitals in Port Harcourt’, American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 4(1), 83–88.
7. Bwanga, O. & Chanda, E., 2020, ‘Challenges in radiation protection in healthcare: A case of Zambia’, EAS Journal of Radiology and Imaging Technology 2(1), 7–14.
8. Lam, D.L., Larson, D.B., Eisenberg, J.D., Forman, H.P. & Lee, C.I., 2015, ‘Communicating potential radiation-induced cancer risks from medical imaging directly to patients’, American Journal of Roentgenology 205(5), 962–970.
9. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), n.d.b, Justification and optimization.
10. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2013, Managing regulatory body competence.
11. Akpan, E.E. & Piate, C.P., 2023, Assessment of different methods of sampling techniques: The strengths and weaknesses.
12. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2004, Safety standards regulatory control of radiation sources.
13. Leung, L., 2015, ‘Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research’, Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 4(3), 324–327.
14. Kellens, P., De Hauwere, A., Gossye, T., Peire, S., Tournicourt, I., Strubbe, L. et al., 2022, ‘Integrity of personal radiation protective equipment (PRPE): A 4-year longitudinal follow-up study’, Insights Into Imaging 13(1), 1–8.
15. Ahmed, A., 2008, Ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions: qualitative versus quantitative.
16. Health Physics Society, 2021, Radiation exposure from medical exams and procedures.
17. Dehghani, A., 2015, ‘Radiation safety awareness amongst staff and patients in the hospitals’, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 6, 114–119.
18. Kiger, M.E. & Varpio, L., 2020, Thematic analysis of qualitative data.
19. Asif, N. & Rodrigues, S., 2015, ‘Qualitative analysis of creative potential of educational leaders’, Journal of Education and Training Studies 3(6), 281.
20. Lakhwani, O.P., Dalal, V., Jindal, M. & Nagala, A., 2019, ‘Radiation protection and standardization’, Journal of Clinical Orthopedics and Trauma 10(4), 738–743.
21. Fiagbedzi, E., Gorleku, P., Nyarko, S., Asare, A. & Ndede, G., 2022, ‘Assessment of radiation protection knowledge and practices among radiographers in the central region of Ghana’, Radiation Medicine and Protection 3(3), 146–151.
22. Eze, C.U., Abonyi, L.C., Njoku, J., Irurhe, N.K. & Olowu, O., 2013, ‘Assessment of radiation protection practices among radiographers in Lagos, Nigeria’, Nigerian Medical Journal 54(6), 386–391.
23. Christensen, B.M., Bjällmark, A., Ndipen, I.M., Afram, S.S. & Bazzi, M., 2024, ‘Barriers to radiographers’ use of radiation safety principles: A qualitative perspective’, Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences 71(2), 214–221.
24. Braun, V. & Clarke, V., 2021, ‘To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales’, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 13(2), 201–216.
25. Khanday, S.A. & Khanam, D., 2023, ‘The research design’, Journal of Critical Reviews 6, 367–376.
26. Hundah, S.N., 2019, Survey of radiation protection amongst non- radiology staff working in DUT Scholarly: fluoroscopy –Guided operating theatres at public health institutions in the eThekwini District of KwaZulu Natal, DUT Scholarly, Durban.
27. Bingham, A.J., 2023, ‘From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 22, 2–4.
28. Allam, S.M.E., Algany, M.M.A. & Khider, Y.I.A., 2024, ‘Radiation safety compliance awareness among healthcare workers exposed to ionizing radiation’, BMC Nursing 23, 208.
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.
