介入放射学工作人员受照剂量调查及调查水平研究

Exposure dose survey and survey level in interventional radiology staff

目的探讨介入放射学工作人员受照剂量的调查水平,为其个人剂量监测中可疑数据的调查提供科学方法。方法收集2013年度13家医院介入放射学工作人员4个周期1 219对内、外热释光个人剂量计(TLD)的受照剂量监测资料,经统计分析甄别其TLD佩带情况。选取正确佩带TLD人员的受照剂量数据计算、确定其调查水平。对可疑数据,根据TLD佩带情况,结合内、外TLD的受照剂量确定调查内容。结果内、外TLD的受照剂量范围分别为最低探测水平(MDL)~17.91和MDL^25.57 m Sv。1 219对TLD中,正确佩带307对(占25.18%),对调佩带81对(占6.64%),混合佩带287对(占23.54%),不佩带内TLD者4对(占0.33%),540对无法判定佩带情况(占44.30%)。内TLD剂量的调查水平为>2.27 m Sv,外TLD调查水平最小值为0.04 m Sv,最大值为46.23m Sv。根据介入放射学工作人员受照剂量的可疑数据确定相应的调查内容。结论应加强对介入放射学工作人员及其管理人员的辐射防护培训,定期修订其受照剂量的调查水平,当其受照剂量低于或高于调查水平时,应进行相应调查。

Objective To investigate the exposure dose survey levels of interventional radiology staffs, and to provide scientific method for the suspicious data investigation in their personal dose monitoring process. Methods Exposure dose monitoring data （personal dose equivalent） of 1 219 pairs of internal and external personal thermoluminesenee dosimeter （TLD） for 4 cycles were collected from 13 hospitals in 2013, and the TLD wearing conditions of the iuterventional staffs were analyzed and screened. The exposure doses of those with correct TLD wearing were selected and calculated to confirm their survey levels. For the suspicious data, the survey contents were confirmed according to the wearing styles combined with the relevant doses of internal and external TLD. Results The internal and external exposure dose ranges were from the minimum detecting level （MDL） to 17.91 roSy and from MDL to 25.57 mSv, respectively. Among the 1 219 pairs of TLDs, 307 pairs （25.18%） were worn properly, 81 pairs （6.64%） exchanged wearing, 287 pairs （23.54%） mixed wearing, 4 pairs （0.33%） were not to wear internal TLD, and 540 pairs （44.30%） were unable to deteI^nine the wear conditions. The exposure dose survey level of internal TLD was 〉 2.27 mSv respectively ; the minimum and maximum values of external TLD were 0.04 mSv and 46.23 mSv respectively. The corresponding survey contents were determined based on the suspicious exposure dose data of the interventional radiology staffs. Conclusion Radiation protection training should be strengthened for the interventional radiology staff and management personnel. The survey level of dose should be regularly revised. When the monitoring dose level in interventional radiology staff is below or above the survey level, the corresponding investigation should be conducted.