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
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
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
Introduction: The Netherlands does not have a national guideline for performing radiographic examinations on pregnant patients. Radiographic examination is a generic term for all examinations performed using ionizing radiation, including but not limited to radiographs, fluoroscopy and computed tomography. A pilot study amongst radiographers (Medical Radiation Technologists (MRTs)) showed that standardized practice of radiographic examinations on pregnant women is not evident between Radiology departments and that there is a need for a national guideline as the varying practice methods may lead to confusion and uncertainty amongst both patients and MRTs. Methods: Focus groups consisting of MRTs from several Radiology departments within the Netherlands were used to map ideas and requirements as to what should be included in the national guideline. Nine focus group sessions were organized with a total of 52 participants. Using a previous review (Wit, Fleur; Vroonland, Colinda; Bijwaard H. Pre-natal X-ray exposure and the risk of developing paediatric cancer; a systematic review of risk factors and a comparison of international guidelines. Health Physics 2021; 121 (3):225e233), the following key points were chosen as discussion topics for the focus group sessions: dose reduction, confirming pregnancy and risk communication. Results: Results showed that the participating MRTs did not agree on the use of lead aprons. That the national guideline should include standardized methods to adjust parameters to decrease radiation dose. Focus group participants find it difficult to ask a patient's pregnancy status, especially when dealing with relatively young and old (er) patients. When communicating the level of risk associated with a radiographic examination the participating MRTs would like to be able to use examples and comparisons, preferably by means of a multilingual website. Conclusion: A national guideline must include information on justification, available alternatives, dose reductions methods and confirmation of pregnancy requirements when fetal dose is a significant risk. Implications for practice: A national guideline ensures standardized practice can be implemented in Radiology departments, increasing clarity of the issues for both patients and MRTs.
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
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
Abstract—A survey was conducted among 20 Dutch hospitals about radiation protection for interventional fluoroscopy. This was a follow-up of a previous study in 2007 that led to several recommendations for radiation protection for interventional fluoroscopy. The results indicate that most recommendations have been followed. However, radiation-induced complications from interventional procedures are still often not recorded in the appropriate register. Furthermore, even though professionals with appropriate training in radiation protection are usually involved in interventional procedures, this often is not the case when these procedures are carried out outside the radiology department. Although this involvement is not required by Dutch law, it is recommended to have radiation protection professionals present more often at interventional procedures. Further improvements in radiation protection for interventional fluoroscopy may come from a comparison of dose-reducing practices among hospitals, the introduction of diagnostic reference levels for interventional procedures, and a more thorough form of screening and follow-up of patients
DOCUMENT
This year, OPTIMAX was warmly welcomed by University College Dublin. For the sixth time students and teachers from Europe, South Africa, South America and Canada have come together enthusiastically to do research in the Radiography domain. As in previous years, there were several research groups consisting of PhD-, MSc- and BSc students and tutors from the OPTIMAX partner Universities or on invitation by partner Universities. OPTIMAX 2018 was partly funded by the partner Universities and partly by the participants.
DOCUMENT
Poster KIM voor de ECR is nu online te zien via EPOS: https://epos.myesr.org/poster/esr/ecr2022/C-16092 posternummer: C-16092, ECR 2022 Purpose Artificial Intelligence (AI) has developed at high speed the last few years and will substantially change various disciplines (1,2). These changes are also noticeable in the field of radiology, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy. However, the focus of attention has mainly been on the radiologist profession, whereas the role of the radiographer has been largely ignored (3). As long as AI for radiology was focused on image recognition and diagnosis, the little attention for the radiographer might be justifiable. But with AI becoming more and more a part of the workflow management, treatment planning and image reconstruction for example, the work of the radiographer will change. However, their training (courses Medical Imaging and Radiotherapeutic Techniques) hardly contain any AI education. Radiographers in the Netherlands are therefore not prepared for changes that will come with the introduction of AI into everyday work.
LINK
Exposures to ionizing radiation frommedical examinations are on the rise. An important cause for this has been the advent and ever-increasing use of computed tomography (CT) scans for diagnostic purposes. It is often implied that population aging contributes significantly to this rise. Here, the trends in population statistics are compared to the trend in the number of CT scans in the Netherlands for the period 2002–2010. It is concluded that population growth and population aging cannot explain the observed rise in CTexaminations. In fact, these factors contribute only 17% to this rise, indicating that there must be other factors that are far more important.
LINK
