Amy R Sharkey1,2, Parthivi Gambhir3, Sepas Saraskani3, Ross Walker3, Ashcaan Hajilou3, Paul Bassett4, Navneet Sandhu5, Peter Croasdale5, Ian Honey5, Athanasios Diamantopoulos1, Vicky Goh1,2. 1. Department of Radiology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Cancer Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 3. King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 4. Statsconsultancy Ltd, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Medical Physics, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Healthcare professionals' occupational exposure to ionising radiation may be increasing due to increasing use of imaging and image-guided intervention. This study aims to assess the occupational exposure of doctors over a 25-year period at an NHS teaching hospital. METHODS: Dosemeter measurements were collected prospectively from 1995 to 2019. Two retrospective analyses were performed over time (first including all measurements, second excluding "zero-dose" measurements), and by speciality. Group comparisons were undertaken using multilevel linear regression; a p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. RESULTS: 8,892 measurements (3,983 body, 1,514 collar, 649 eye, 2,846 hand), of which 3,350 were non-zero measurements (1,541 body, 883 collar, 155 eye, 771 hand), were included. Whole dataset analysis found a significant decrease in exposure for radiologists and cardiologists, as measured by body, hand and collar dosemeters over the last 25 years (p < 0.01 for all). The non-zero readings reflect the whole cohort analysis except in the case of eye dosemeters, which showed a significant decrease in exposure for cardiologists (p < 0.01), but a significant increase for radiologists and surgeons/anaesthetists (p < 0.01 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst ionising radiation remains an occupational risk for doctors, the overall decreasing trend in occupational exposure is reassuring. However, a significant rise in eye dose for radiologists, surgeons and anaesthetists is concerning, and close monitoring is required to prevent future issues. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper is one of few evaluating the occupational radiation exposure to doctors over a 25-year period, showing that although most dosemeter measurements reflect decreasing exposure, the increase in eye exposure warrants caution.
OBJECTIVES: Healthcare professionals' occupational exposure to ionising radiation may be increasing due to increasing use of imaging and image-guided intervention. This study aims to assess the occupational exposure of doctors over a 25-year period at an NHS teaching hospital. METHODS: Dosemeter measurements were collected prospectively from 1995 to 2019. Two retrospective analyses were performed over time (first including all measurements, second excluding "zero-dose" measurements), and by speciality. Group comparisons were undertaken using multilevel linear regression; a p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. RESULTS: 8,892 measurements (3,983 body, 1,514 collar, 649 eye, 2,846 hand), of which 3,350 were non-zero measurements (1,541 body, 883 collar, 155 eye, 771 hand), were included. Whole dataset analysis found a significant decrease in exposure for radiologists and cardiologists, as measured by body, hand and collar dosemeters over the last 25 years (p < 0.01 for all). The non-zero readings reflect the whole cohort analysis except in the case of eye dosemeters, which showed a significant decrease in exposure for cardiologists (p < 0.01), but a significant increase for radiologists and surgeons/anaesthetists (p < 0.01 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst ionising radiation remains an occupational risk for doctors, the overall decreasing trend in occupational exposure is reassuring. However, a significant rise in eye dose for radiologists, surgeons and anaesthetists is concerning, and close monitoring is required to prevent future issues. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper is one of few evaluating the occupational radiation exposure to doctors over a 25-year period, showing that although most dosemeter measurements reflect decreasing exposure, the increase in eye exposure warrants caution.
Authors: A Brun; R Alcaraz Mor; M Bourrelly; G Dalivoust; G Gazazian; R Boufercha; M P Lehucher-Michel; I Sari-Minodier Journal: J Radiol Prot Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 1.394
Authors: Dominique Laurier; David B Richardson; Elisabeth Cardis; Robert D Daniels; Michael Gillies; Jackie O'Hagan; Ghassan B Hamra; Richard Haylock; Klervi Leuraud; Monika Moissonnier; Mary K Schubauer-Berigan; Isabelle Thierry-Chef; Ausrele Kesminiene Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: Hein Heidbuchel; Fred H M Wittkampf; Eliseo Vano; Sabine Ernst; Richard Schilling; Eugenio Picano; Lluis Mont; Pierre Jais; Joseph de Bono; Christopher Piorkowski; Eduardo Saad; Francisco Femenia Journal: Europace Date: 2014-05-02 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Won Jin Lee; Yeongchull Choi; Seulki Ko; Eun Shil Cha; Jaeyoung Kim; Young Min Kim; Kyoung Ae Kong; Songwon Seo; Ye Jin Bang; Yae Won Ha Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 4.430