Using personal protective equipment (PPE) properly and following available rules and regulations in the field of ionizing radiation protection can significantly decrease these harms. If these equipment and facilities ...Using personal protective equipment (PPE) properly and following available rules and regulations in the field of ionizing radiation protection can significantly decrease these harms. If these equipment and facilities are not available in diagnostic radiation centers or are not used properly, radiographers’ and people’s health will be jeopardized. To date, no study has examined the protective condition against radiation in diagnostic radiation centers of Kurdistan province. The present study, therefore, was an attempt to address this gap. This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2014-2015 among 35 diagnostic radiation centers of Kurdistan. Data were collected through a checklist (which was developed based on the available radiation protection laws), a survey for patients and their caregivers, and insite observation and dosimetry. The radiation health expert of the province proceeded to each of the radiology centers personally. Upon arrival to each center, he informed health physics officials of the centers about the study and collected data through observation, interview, and the checklist. On the other hand, in order to examine radiation leakage in different modes of imaging session, dosimetry was conducted by the use of an environmental dosimeter (Fluke 451 manufactured in the United States). The collected data were analyzed through Excel. It was found that in 67.3% of the cases, there was personal protective equipment for patients and their caregivers (robes, thyroid strap, gonadal shield, glasses, and lead gloves). Furthermore, this equipment and other physical holders were used for patients and their caregivers in 75.7% of the cases. This rate was 87.6% for pregnant women. In addition, we found that around 94% of the personnel went through medical examinations every six or twelve months, a rate that was much higher than that found in Nohi’s study. When it comes to improving the indices of protection against radiation in radiation centers, it seems that adding the proposed items in this study to the present data collection form (form 110 used for urban areas) or designing a new form will change the attitude toward the concept of protection. This will highlight the importance of this topic and will result in decision makers’ more serious attempts to promote the protection condition.展开更多
文摘Using personal protective equipment (PPE) properly and following available rules and regulations in the field of ionizing radiation protection can significantly decrease these harms. If these equipment and facilities are not available in diagnostic radiation centers or are not used properly, radiographers’ and people’s health will be jeopardized. To date, no study has examined the protective condition against radiation in diagnostic radiation centers of Kurdistan province. The present study, therefore, was an attempt to address this gap. This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2014-2015 among 35 diagnostic radiation centers of Kurdistan. Data were collected through a checklist (which was developed based on the available radiation protection laws), a survey for patients and their caregivers, and insite observation and dosimetry. The radiation health expert of the province proceeded to each of the radiology centers personally. Upon arrival to each center, he informed health physics officials of the centers about the study and collected data through observation, interview, and the checklist. On the other hand, in order to examine radiation leakage in different modes of imaging session, dosimetry was conducted by the use of an environmental dosimeter (Fluke 451 manufactured in the United States). The collected data were analyzed through Excel. It was found that in 67.3% of the cases, there was personal protective equipment for patients and their caregivers (robes, thyroid strap, gonadal shield, glasses, and lead gloves). Furthermore, this equipment and other physical holders were used for patients and their caregivers in 75.7% of the cases. This rate was 87.6% for pregnant women. In addition, we found that around 94% of the personnel went through medical examinations every six or twelve months, a rate that was much higher than that found in Nohi’s study. When it comes to improving the indices of protection against radiation in radiation centers, it seems that adding the proposed items in this study to the present data collection form (form 110 used for urban areas) or designing a new form will change the attitude toward the concept of protection. This will highlight the importance of this topic and will result in decision makers’ more serious attempts to promote the protection condition.
