Shoaib Safiullah1,2, Roshan Patel1, Brittany Uribe1, Kyle Spradling1, Chandana Lall3, Lishi Zhang4, Zhamshid Okhunov1, Ralph V Clayman1, Jaime Landman1,3. 1. 1 Department of Urology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California. 2. 2 Division of Urology, University of Missouri , Columbia, Missouri. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, University of California , Irvine, Orange, California. 4. 4 Institute for Clinical and Translational Science, University of California , Irvine, Irvine, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ionizing radiation is implicated in nearly 2% of malignancies in the United States; radiation shields prevent unnecessary radiation exposure during medical imaging. Contemporary radiation shield utilization for adult patients in the United States is poorly defined. Therefore, we evaluated the prevalence of protective shielding utilization in adult patients undergoing CT scans in United States' hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was sent to established radiology departments randomly selected from the 2015 American Hospital Association Guide. Radiology departments conducting adult CT imaging were eligible; among 370 eligible departments, 215 departments accepted the study participation request. Questions focused on shielding practices during CT imaging of the eyes, thyroid, breasts, and gonads. Prevalence data were stratified per hospital location, size, and type. Main outcomes included overall protective shielding utilization, respondents' belief and knowledge regarding radiation safety, and organ-specific shielding prevalence. RESULTS: Sixty-seven of 215 (31%) hospitals completed the survey; 66 (99%) reported familiarity with the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle and 56 (84%) affirmed their belief that shielding is beneficial. Only 60% of hospitals employed shielding during CT imaging; among these institutions, shielding varied based on CT study: abdominopelvic CT (13, 33%), head CT (33, 83%), or chest CT (30, 75%). CONCLUSIONS: Among surveyed hospitals, 40% do not utilize CT shielding despite the majority acknowledging the ALARA principle and agreeing that shielding is a beneficial practice. Failure to address the low prevalence of protective shielding may lead to poor community health due to increased risk of radiation-related cancers.
PURPOSE:Ionizing radiation is implicated in nearly 2% of malignancies in the United States; radiation shields prevent unnecessary radiation exposure during medical imaging. Contemporary radiation shield utilization for adult patients in the United States is poorly defined. Therefore, we evaluated the prevalence of protective shielding utilization in adult patients undergoing CT scans in United States' hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was sent to established radiology departments randomly selected from the 2015 American Hospital Association Guide. Radiology departments conducting adult CT imaging were eligible; among 370 eligible departments, 215 departments accepted the study participation request. Questions focused on shielding practices during CT imaging of the eyes, thyroid, breasts, and gonads. Prevalence data were stratified per hospital location, size, and type. Main outcomes included overall protective shielding utilization, respondents' belief and knowledge regarding radiation safety, and organ-specific shielding prevalence. RESULTS: Sixty-seven of 215 (31%) hospitals completed the survey; 66 (99%) reported familiarity with the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle and 56 (84%) affirmed their belief that shielding is beneficial. Only 60% of hospitals employed shielding during CT imaging; among these institutions, shielding varied based on CT study: abdominopelvic CT (13, 33%), head CT (33, 83%), or chest CT (30, 75%). CONCLUSIONS: Among surveyed hospitals, 40% do not utilize CT shielding despite the majority acknowledging the ALARA principle and agreeing that shielding is a beneficial practice. Failure to address the low prevalence of protective shielding may lead to poor community health due to increased risk of radiation-related cancers.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: A D Goren; R D Prins; L T Dauer; B Quinn; A Al-Najjar; R D Faber; G Patchell; I Branets; D C Colosi Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: David J Brenner; Richard Doll; Dudley T Goodhead; Eric J Hall; Charles E Land; John B Little; Jay H Lubin; Dale L Preston; R Julian Preston; Jerome S Puskin; Elaine Ron; Rainer K Sachs; Jonathan M Samet; Richard B Setlow; Marco Zaider Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: John D Mathews; Anna V Forsythe; Zoe Brady; Martin W Butler; Stacy K Goergen; Graham B Byrnes; Graham G Giles; Anthony B Wallace; Philip R Anderson; Tenniel A Guiver; Paul McGale; Timothy M Cain; James G Dowty; Adrian C Bickerstaffe; Sarah C Darby Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-21