Rofo 2017; 189(S 01): S1-S140
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1602630
Nachtrag Poster-Ausstellung (Wissenschaft)
Ausbildung und Beruf
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Current Radiation Dose Reduction (RDR) Practices of Diagnostic Radiology Technologists in Pakistan

A Syed
1   Dow University Hospital, Radiology, Karachi
,
K Masood
2   Dow University hospital, Radiology, Karachi
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
11 April 2017 (online)

 

Zielsetzung:

Although digital radiography is one of the lowest dose imaging tests, unnecessary radiation exposure is of particular concern. Recent advances in radiation safety practices emphasizes on RDR to prevent unnecessary exposure. „Image gently“ campaign has gained significant momentum in this regard, creating educational and awareness opportunities for parents, patients, and medical professionals. „Image Gently Digital Radiography Safety Checklist“ developed by the Alliance for Radiation Safety in Pediatric Imaging, describes the critical steps of digital radiography that, if omitted, could potentially result in harm to the patient. We thus aim to assess current RDR practices of diagnostic technologists at the radiology institutes of Pakistan; and explore determinants of poor practice among them, using „Image Gently“ guidelines.

Material und Methodik:

A total of 100 radiation technologists employed at several radiology departments of the city were surveyed through structured questionnaire using modified „Image Gently Digital Radiography Safety Checklist”. The checklist assessed RDR practices „prior to starting”, „image capture”, „image critique”, and „completion of examination“ through 20 question items. Poor RDR score was used as outcome variable (score < 15 = Poor, and ≥15 as Good score). Regression analyses were used to find determinants of poor RDR score (the outcome variable) among them. Results are reported as frequency for descriptive characteristics, and Odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) for regression analysis.

Ergebnisse:

Almost half of all participants (n = 46) scored poorly on the RDR score. Participants who worked in public sector setups (OR = 5.35, 95% CI (2.26 – 12.65), p-value < 0.01), and were of the opinion that staff at their institute were overworked (OR = 3.96, 95% CI (0.44 – 35.18), p-value 0.04); and reported that the management did not promote RDR practices (OR = 6.61, 95% CI (1.69 – 25.77), p-value < 0.01) were more likely to score poorly on the RDR score.

Schlussfolgerungen:

The results of this study indicate poor RDR practices among Pakistan diagnostic radiology technicians; and the findings may be used to identify areas of weakness, and set goals for improvement planning. The findings highlight the patient radiation safety issue in developing country context.