Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for medical x-ray procedures are being implemented currently in the Netherlands. By order of the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate, a survey has been conducted among 20 Dutch hospitals to investigate the level of implementation of the Dutch DRLs in current radiological practice. It turns out that hospitals are either well underway in implementing the DRLs or have already done so. However, the DRLs have usually not yet been incorporated in the QAsystem of the department nor in the treatment protocols. It was shown that the amount of radiation used, as far as it was indicated by the hospitals, usually remains below the DRLs. A procedure for comparing dose levels to the DRLs has been prescribed but is not Always followed in practice. This is especially difficult in the case of children, as most general hospitals receive few children. Health Phys. 108(4):462–464; 2015
DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, hospitals have difficulty in implementing the formal procedure of comparing radiation dose values to Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs).METHODS: To support the hospitals, train radiography students, and carry out a nationwide dose survey, diagnostic radiography students performed 125 DRL comparisons for nine different procedures in 29 radiology departments. Students were instructed at three Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences with a radiography programme and supervised by medical physicists from the participating hospitals.RESULTS: After a pilot study in the western part of the country in eight hospitals, this study was enlarged to involve 21 hospitals from all over the Netherlands. The 86 obtained dose comparisons fall below the DRLs in 97% of all cases. This very high compliance may have been enhanced by the voluntary participation of hospitals that are confident about their performance.CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the current DRLs that were not based on a national survey, may need to be updated, sometimes to half their current value. For chest and pelvis examinations the DRLs could be lowered from 12 and 300 μGy·m 2 to the 75-percentile values found in this study of 5,9 and 188 μGy·m 2, respectively.
DOCUMENT
Introduction In the Netherlands, hospitals have difficulty in implementing the formal procedure of comparing radiation dose values to Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs).
LINK
Review: With great interest we have read the paper “Pregnancy Screening before Diagnostic Radiography in Emergency Department; an Educational Review” by A.I. Abushouk et al. (1). We agree with the authors that unnecessary fetal radiation exposure should be avoided and that pregnancy screening can be a means to accomplish this. However, in their paper the authors suggest in several instances that radiological imaging during pregnancy can lead to teratogenic effects. In the Abstract it is stated: “Radiation exposure during pregnancy may have serious teratogenic effects to the fetus. Therefore, checking the pregnancy status before imaging women of child bearing age can protect against these effects.”, and in the Introduction: “Therefore, checking the pregnancy status before imaging women of child bearing age can protect against radiation teratogenic effects.” We strongly disagree with these statements: common radiological imaging will usually not give rise to fetal radiation doses high enough to lead to teratogenesis. The statements in the paper may lead to unnecessary worrying of pregnant women and it may discourage themfrom undergoing medically necessary radiological examinations.
DOCUMENT
Abstract gepubliceerd in Elsevier: Introduction: Recent research has identified the issue of ‘dose creep’ in diagnostic radiography and claims it is due to the introduction of CR and DR technology. More recently radiographers have reported that they do not regularly manipulate exposure factors for different sized patients and rely on pre-set exposures. The aim of the study was to identify any variation in knowledge and radiographic practice across Europe when imaging the chest, abdomen and pelvis using digital imaging. Methods: A random selection of 50% of educational institutes (n ¼ 17) which were affiliated members of the European Federation of Radiographer Societies (EFRS) were contacted via their contact details supplied on the EFRS website. Each of these institutes identified appropriate radiographic staff in their clinical network to complete an online survey via SurveyMonkey. Data was collected on exposures used for 3 common x-ray examinations using CR/DR, range of equipment in use, staff educational training and awareness of DRL. Descriptive statistics were performed with the aid of Excel and SPSS version 21. Results: A response rate of 70% was achieved from the affiliated educational members of EFRS and a rate of 55% from the individual hospitals in 12 countries across Europe. Variation was identified in practice when imaging the chest, abdomen and pelvis using both CR and DR digital systems. There is wide variation in radiographer training/education across countries.
DOCUMENT
Abstract—A survey about radiation protection in pediatric radiology was conducted among 22 general and seven children’s hospitals in the Netherlands. Questions concerned, for example, child protocols used for CT, fluoroscopy and x-ray imaging, number of images and scans made, radiation doses and measures taken to reduce these, special tools used for children, and quality assurance issues. The answers received from 27 hospitals indicate that radiation protection practices differ considerably between general and children’s hospitals but also between the respective general and children’s hospitals. It is recommended that hospitals consult each other to come up with more uniform best practices. Few hospitals were able to supply doses that can be compared to the national Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs). The ones that could be compared exceeded the DRLs in one in five cases, which is more than was expected beforehand.
LINK
INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) have not been based on a national survey as proposed by ICRP. Instead, local exposure data, expert judgment and the international scientific literature were used as sources. This study investigated whether the current DRLs are reasonable for Dutch radiological practice.METHODS: A national project was set up, in which radiography students carried out dose measurements in hospitals supervised by medical physicists. The project ran from 2014 to 2017 and dose values were analysed for a trend over time. In the absence of such a trend, the joint yearly data sets were considered a single data set and were analysed together. In this way the national project mimicked a national survey.RESULTS: For six out of eleven radiological procedures enough data was collected for further analysis. In the first step of the analysis no trend was found over time for any of these procedures. In the second step the joint analysis lead to suggestions for five new DRL values that are far below the current ones. The new DRLs are based on the 75 percentile values of the distributions of all dose data per procedure.CONCLUSION: The results show that the current DRLs are too high for five of the six procedures that have been analysed. For the other five procedures more data needs to be collected. Moreover, the mean weights of the patients are higher than expected. This introduces bias when these are not recorded and the mean weight is assumed to be 77 kg.IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The current checking of doses for compliance with the DRLs needs to be changed. Both the procedure (regarding weights) and the values of the DRLs should be updated.
DOCUMENT
Standard SARS-CoV-2 testing protocols using nasopharyngeal/throat (NP/T) swabs are invasive and require trained medical staff for reliable sampling. In addition, it has been shown that PCR is more sensitive as compared to antigen-based tests. Here we describe the analytical and clinical evaluation of our in-house RNA extraction-free saliva-based molecular assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Analytical sensitivity of the test was equal to the sensitivity obtained in other Dutch diagnostic laboratories that process NP/T swabs. In this study, 955 individuals participated and provided NP/T swabs for routine molecular analysis (with RNA extraction) and saliva for comparison. Our RT-qPCR resulted in a sensitivity of 82,86% and a specificity of 98,94% compared to the gold standard. A false-negative ratio of 1,9% was found. The SARS-CoV-2 detection workflow described here enables easy, economical, and reliable saliva processing, useful for repeated testing of individuals.
LINK
Current methods for energy diagnosis in heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems are not consistent with process and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) as used by engineers to design and operate these systems, leading to very limited application of energy performance diagnosis in practice. In a previous paper, a generic reference architecture – hereafter referred to as the 4S3F (four symptoms and three faults) framework – was developed. Because it is closely related to the way HVAC experts diagnose problems in HVAC installations, 4S3F largely overcomes the problem of limited application. The present article addresses the fault diagnosis process using automated fault identification (AFI) based on symptoms detected with a diagnostic Bayesian network (DBN). It demonstrates that possible faults can be extracted from P&IDs at different levels and that P&IDs form the basis for setting up effective DBNs. The process was applied to real sensor data for a whole year. In a case study for a thermal energy plant, control faults were successfully isolated using balance, energy performance and operational state symptoms. Correction of the isolated faults led to annual primary energy savings of 25%. An analysis showed that the values of set probabilities in the DBN model are not outcome-sensitive. Link to the formal publication via its DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110289
DOCUMENT
Saliva diagnostics have become increasingly popular due to their non-invasive nature and patient-friendly collection process. Various collection methods are available, yet these are not always well standardized for either quantitative or qualitative analysis. In line, the objective of this study was to evaluate if measured levels of various biomarkers in the saliva of healthy individuals were affected by three distinct saliva collection methods: 1) unstimulated saliva, 2) chew stimulated saliva, and 3) oral rinse. Saliva samples from 30 healthy individuals were obtained by the three collection methods. Then, the levels of various salivary biomarkers such as proteins and ions were determined. It was found that levels of various biomarkers obtained from unstimulated saliva were comparable to those in chew stimulated saliva. The levels of potassium, sodium, and amylase activity differed significantly among the three collection methods. Levels of all biomarkers measured using the oral rinse method significantly differed from those obtained from unstimulated and chew-stimulated saliva. In conclusion, both unstimulated and chew-stimulated saliva provided comparable levels for a diverse group of biomarkers. However, the results obtained from the oral rinse method significantly differed from those of unstimulated and chew-stimulated saliva, due to the diluted nature of the saliva extract.
DOCUMENT
