Assessment of Radiation doses of Staff of Nuclear Medicine Unit at Mulago National Referral and Teaching Hospital (original) (raw)
Related papers
The levels of radiation of radiology personnel were assessed in five major hospitals in Makurdi metropolis. A data collection instrument was a semi structured self-completion questionnaire, designed in line with the objectives of the study. Personnel radiation monitoring was available in only 1 out of 5 hospitals (20%). Radiation monitors were found to be fairly read about every quarter of the year only in one (1) hospital. Radiation safety officers were available in only 3 hospitals (60%). About (32.5%, n=13) believe the hospital management do not make provision for it. Dosimetric records of staff were not given any consideration in the establishment of radiology departments. Personnel radiation monitoring in Hospitals on the whole was found to be very poor. This is a significant precautionary lapse as radiation risk cannot be assessed and corrective measures taken.
Occupational Radiation Dose for Medical Workers at a University Hospital
Journal of Taibah University for Science, 2017
Occupational radiation doses for medical workers from the departments of diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine, and radiotherapy at the university hospital of King Abdul-Aziz University (KAU) were measured and analysed. A total of 100 medical radiation workers were monitored to determine the status of their average annual effective dose. The analysis and the calibration procedures of this study were carried out at the Center for Radiation Protection and Training-KAU. The monitored workers were classified into subgroups, namely, medical staff/supervisors, technicians, and nurses, according to their responsibilities and specialties. The doses were measured using thermo luminescence dosimeters (TLD-100 (LiF:Mg,Ti)) placed over the lead apron at the chest level in all types of workers except for those in the cath lab, for whom the TLD was placed at the thyroid protective collar. For nuclear medicine, a hand dosimeter was used to measure the hand dose distribution. The annual average effective doses for diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine, and radiotherapy workers were found to be 0.66, 1.56, and 0.28 mSv, respectively. The results of the measured annual dose were well below the international recommended dose limit of 20 mSv.
Radiation exposure poses hazards for health-care workers, patients and health-care facilities (HCFs). Radiographic imaging is among the diagnostic tools in medicine that has an extremely valuable and accuracy, hence, ionizing radiation and computed tomography (CT) scan has potential risks. Hospital workers in the x-ray machine rooms are likely to get exposed to the excess of radiations. Therefore, Personnel and radiation safety monitoring is a necessary safety precaution in the radiography. The aimed of this study is to assess the occupational radiation exposure and safety protection among medical staff in HCFs in hospitals In Dhaka Bangladesh. Total of five (5) HCFs with radiological services was selected during the data collection in the period from April toSeptember 2015. The radiation assessment survey was carried out by the measurement of radiation in the CT-scan room and x-ray at different points of the imaging, diagnostics, and waiting rooms of the five hospitals. The radiation safety was assessed by monitoring the eighty (80) occupational workers from five hospitals In Dhaka Bangladesh for six months to quantify their exposure to excess radiation doses using a stance potable radiation dosimeter. Data revealed that the average estimated dose for all subjects ranged from 0.01 to 2.42 mSv. Among these workers, workers in radiology department received the most substantial estimated dose, which is below recommended dose for the international dose limit (20 mSv). It is significant to comment that workers were wearing protective lead aprons and thyroid shields when performing examinations, in agreeing to the radiation protection policy.
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 2016
Radiation is a component of man's physical environment, and is broadly classified into ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. The most energetic form and of major public health significance is ionizing radiation. In normal circumstances 80% of our exposure to ionizing radiation comes from natural sources of which radon gas is by far the most significant, while the other 20% comes from manmade sources, primarily medical X-rays. Use of ionizing radiation in medical imaging for diagnostic and interventional purposes has risen dramatically in recent years with a concomitant increase in exposure of patients and health workers to radiation hazards; medical and dental X-rays now constitute the major man-made sources of radiation exposure [1-3]. While reports from studies demonstrated dramatic rise in the prevalence of adverse health effects following exposure to ionizing radiation over the past two decades [4,5], the documented evidence of poor knowledge of radiation safety among various cadres of health workers at risk of occupational exposure shows the enormity of the problem at hand [6-8]. Although the adverse health effects of ionizing radiation such as cataract, skin erythema, and cancers among others, are known to vary according to dose and duration of exposure, it is assumed that there is actually no safe dose of ionizing radiation [9]. The focal point for radiation safety based on this assumption is 'the ALARA concept' [10] this entails that radiation exposure be reduced to 'As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)' but not exceeding the limit on effective dose recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) [11]. An estimated 20 to 30 percent of radiological examinations prescribed by doctors have been found to be of no use in the management of the patients for which they were ordered. Also, underestimation of doses associated with various imaging modalities was found to be prevalent among healthcare professionals [12,13]. These findings support the consensus of opinion that exposure to radiation hazards can be minimized through compliance with fundamental radiation protection principles of optimization and justification [14,15]. In recent years, accessibility to modern medical imaging machines in the healthcare facilities in Nigeria has improved tremendously; resulting in increased risk of radiation exposure to the patients and health workers. In recognition of this threat, the Nigeria Nuclear Regulating Authority (NNRA) had re-invigorated monitoring of facilities (both medical and non-medical) that use ionizing radiation in the country to enforce compliance with the Nigeria Basic Ionizing Radiation Regulations (NBIRR) 2003 [16]. The contents of the NBIRR 2003 are basically in line with the ICRP regulations. It recommended an effective dose limit of 100mSv in any period of five consecutive years (i.e., average of 20mSv per year) subjected to a maximum effective dose of 50mSv in any single calendar year for an employee aged 18 years and above and
Journal of Radiation and Nuclear Applications, 2022
Background: Nuclear medicine departments of medical centers deal with sealed as well as unsealed radioactive source for multiple purposes. This potentially rises the background dose rates and consequently, radiation exposure to nuclear medicine professionals. This study targeted to determine the background radiation levels in the nuclear medicine department of NORIN cancer hospital Nawabshah, Pakistan. Materials & Methods: Background dose rates of ten work stations of nuclear medicine department were recorded using a pre-calibrated radiation survey meter RM1001-RD LAMSE for one year periodically and Annual Effective Dose Rates (AEDRs) were determined with the help of standard notations. The organ doses were also calculated using recommended conversion and occupancy factors. Results & Discussion: The highest AEDR of 1.073 ± 0.056 mSv/yr was found at the door of radioactive waste room while the lowest was found 0.580 ± 0.013 mSv/yr in the stress room of nuclear medicine department. The standard error ranged between 0.020-0.056. Maximum organ dose of 0.880 mSv/yr was found to testes at the door of radioactive waste room and the lowest organ dose of 0.336 mSv/yr was found to ovaries in the stress room. These results show the T-test values in a level of significance of 5% (P<0.05). Conclusions: The radiation levels calculated in this study are well within the permissible radiation limit of 1.0 mSv/yr recommended by the ICRP and hardly 45% of UNSCEAR limit of 2.4 mSv/yr. The organ-specific doses are also in safe zone. Therefore, the nuclear medicine professionals of this medical Centre are safe from hazards of background radiation. Strict compliance with radiation protection and regulatory protocols eliminates the undue anxiety about the hazards of background radiation in the nuclear medicine professionals.
Evaluation of Radiation Workers’ Occupational Doses Working at NIMRA Jamshoro
Journal of the Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the occupational radiation doses received by the workers of NIMRA Jamshoro. METHODS: To detect occupational radiation doses, the radiation workers of NIMRA have been issued film badges with unique identification number for the particular worker. In this study, the radiation dose received in 2011 and total dose received in last five years (2007-2011) by 35 radiation workers was evaluated. RESULTS: The results show that annual doses of workers were ranging from 0.1 mSv to 3.60 mSv (0.5% ~ 18.0%) of annual dose for the year 2011, whereas the summed up the total dose for the last five years (2007-2011) ranging from 2.57 mSv to 22.04 mSv out of 100 mSv (total dose for 05 years) were recorded. CONCLUSION: The annual and last five years data of radiation doses to all the workers was in the acceptable range of National and International regulatory bodies. KEYWORDS: Occupational dose, Film badge, Radiation source, Personal monitori...
The European Research Journal
Objectives. Large percentages of X-ray facilities in Nigeria do not use radiation monitoring device; a few percentage that use them do not evaluate or carryout out assessment programs to ascertain the detriment to occupationally exposed workers. This study was aimed at evaluating dose reports from 2013 to 2016 for personnel who operate radiation facilities and those that work within radiation field during certain X-ray procedures/examinations in the department of radiology and dentistry respectively; to ascertain if there is correlation between personnel dose and workload in both department and to determine if dose records are within acceptable limit recommended by the international atomic energy agency (IAEA) safety standards. Methods. Direct ion storage (DIS) dosimeter was used for a total of 35 occupationally exposed personnel who work in the department of radiology and dentistry. The DIS dosimeter was read every two months and results were authomatically saved on the instadoseTM platform. Results. The mean (total) dose in radiology department for the first, second, third and fourth year was 0.17 ± 0.08 (3.52) mSv, 0.08 ± 0.03 (0.77) mSv, 0.07 ± 0.04 (0.72) mSv and 0.07 ± 0.05 (0.55) mSv and in Dentistry was 0.08 ± 0.02 (0.73) mSv, 0.05 ± 0.02 (0.42) mSv, 0.05 ± 0.02 (0.24) mSv and 0.07 ± 0.04 (0.34) mSv; respectively. There was significant difference in mean personnel dose from 2013-2016 in Radiology (p=0.028) and in Dentistry Department (p=0.004). Correlation of workload and personnel dose in Radiology (p=0.240) and Dentistry Department (p=0.765) wasn't significant. There was no correlation in mean dose between both department (p=0.256). Conclusion. Overall mean dose in both department for occupationally exposed personnel were below IAEA/ICRU annual dose limit of 20 mSv averaged over a period of 5 consecutive years. Dose reports of personnel in both department reduced as the year progressed due to radiation safety awareness.
Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 2013
The appropriate radiation protection measures applied in departments of nuclear medicine should lead to a reduction in doses received by the employees. ), nurses received on average two-times higher (4.6 mSv) annual doses to the whole body than those received by radiopharmacy technicians. The purpose of this work was to examine whether implementation of changes in the radiation protection protocol will considerably influence the reduction in whole-body doses received by the staff that are the most exposed. A reduction in nurses' exposure by ∼63 % took place in 2008-11, whereas the exposure of radiopharmacy technicians grew by no more than 22 % in comparison with that in the period 1991-2007. Proper reorganisation of the work in departments of nuclear medicine can considerably affect dose reduction and bring about equal distribution of the exposure.
Evaluation of Occupational Radiation Exposure in a Radio-Diagnostic Facility in Katsina- Nigeria
FUDMA JOURNAL OF SCIENCES
Poor implementation of quality assurance programs in the radiation industry has been a major setback in our locality. Several studies revealed that occupational workers are exposed to many potential hazards of ionizing radiation during radio-diagnostic procedures, yet radiation workers are often not monitored. This study aims to evaluate the occupational exposure of the radiation workers in Federal Medical Centre Katsina, and to compare the exposure with recommended occupational radiation dose limits. The quarterly readings of 20 thermo-luminescent dosimeters (TLDs') used by the radiation workers from January to December, 2019 were collected from the facility's radiation monitoring archive, and subsequently assessed and analyzed. The results indicate that the average annual equivalent dose per occupational worker range from 0.74 to 1.20 mSv and 1.28 to 2.21 mSv for skin surface and deep skin dose, measured at 10 mm and 0.07 mm tissue depth respectively. The occupational dose...