| Autor: |
Behr-Meenen C; Competence Centre for Epidemiology and Health Services Research for Healthcare Professionals (CVcare), Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), 20246 Hamburg, Germany., von Boetticher H; Division for Medical Radiation Physics, Faculty VI: Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, 26121 Oldenburg, Germany., Kersten JF; Competence Centre for Epidemiology and Health Services Research for Healthcare Professionals (CVcare), Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), 20246 Hamburg, Germany., Nienhaus A; Competence Centre for Epidemiology and Health Services Research for Healthcare Professionals (CVcare), Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), 20246 Hamburg, Germany.; Department of Occupational Medicine, Toxic Substances, Health Service Research, German Statuary Institution for Accident Insurance and Prevention for Health and Welfare Services (BGW), 22089 Hamburg, Germany. |
| Abstrakt: |
Interventional radiology/cardiology is one of the fields with the highest radiation doses for workers. For this reason, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) published new recommendations in 2018 to shield staff from radiation. This study sets out to establish the extent to which these recommendations are observed in Germany. For the study, areas were selected which are known to have relatively high radiation exposure along with good conditions for radiological protection-interventional cardiology, radiology and vascular surgery. The study was advertised with the aid of an information flyer which was distributed via organisations including the German Cardiac Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie- Herz- und Kreislaufforschung e. V.). Everyone who participated in our study received a questionnaire to record their occupational medical history, dosimetry, working practices, existing interventional installations and personal protective equipment. The results were compared with international recommendations, especially those of the ICRP, based on state-of-the-art equipment. A total of 104 respondents from eight German clinics took part in the survey. Four participants had been medically diagnosed with cataracts. None of the participants had previously worn an additional dosimeter over their apron to determine partial-body doses. The interventional installations recommended by the ICRP have not been fitted in all examination rooms and, where they have been put in place, they are not always used consistently. Just 31 participants (36.6%) stated that they "always" wore protective lead glasses or a visor. This study revealed considerable deficits in radiological protection-especially in connection with shielding measures and dosimetric practices pertaining to the head and neck-during a range of interventions. Examination rooms without the recommended interventional installations should be upgraded in the future. According to the principle of dose minimization, there is considerable potential for improving radiation protection. Temporary measurements should be taken over the apron to determine the organ-specific equivalent dose to the lens of the eye and the head. |
