Search

Veterinary workers use lead shielding for protection against harm from ionizing radiation during diagnostic imaging. Surface lead on shielding has been reported as a potential exposure hazard. The purpose of this prospective, analytical, descriptive study was to measure surface lead on lead-containing shielding in the field service and small animal radiology areas of a veterinary teaching hospital, and to examine potential risk factors for surface lead. Surface lead on a convenience sample of 54 lead shielding items was measured in a commercial laboratory using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. The median and range of surface lead for aprons, thyroid collars, and gloves were 3.6 μg/dm 2 (range, 1.3-22.4 μg/dm 2 ), 23.1 μg/dm 2 (range, 2.6-116 μg/dm 2 ), and 134 μg/dm 2 (range, 1.5-155 μg/dm 2 ), respectively. In the final multivariable analysis, the mean surface lead on thyroid collars and gloves was higher than on aprons (relative differences 4.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2, 10.5, P < 0.001; and 9.5, 95% CI 4.4, 20.6, P < 0.001, respectively). The mean surface lead on shielding in the worst condition was higher than on shielding in the intermediate and best conditions (P < 0.001). Lead shielding provides effective protection against the harmful effects of ionizing radiation, and shielding should always be worn during radiation exposure. Based on our findings and the common use of lead shielding in veterinary workplaces, we recommend that employers inform workers of this hazard and provide training on steps to mitigate exposure, including the use of disposable gloves when wearing lead shielding and handwashing after use., (© 2021 American College of Veterinary Radiology.)

Objective: To describe the radiation safety behaviors of veterinary specialists performing small animal fluoroscopic procedures and examine potential risk factors for these behaviors, including knowledge of radiation risk and training regarding machine operating parameters., Sample: 197 veterinary specialists and residents in training., Procedures: An electronic questionnaire was distributed to members of the American Colleges of Veterinary Internal Medicine (subspecialties of cardiology and small animal internal medicine), Veterinary Radiology, and Veterinary Surgery., Results: The overall survey response rate was 6% (240/4,274 email recipients). Of the 240 respondents, 197 (82%) had operated an x-ray unit for a small animal fluoroscopic procedure in the preceding year and fully completed the questionnaire. More than 95% of respondents believed that radiation causes cancer, yet approximately 60% of respondents never wore hand or eye protection during fluoroscopic procedures, and 28% never adjusted the fluoroscopy machine operating parameters for the purpose of reducing their radiation dose. The most common reasons for not wearing eye shielding included no requirement to wear eyeglasses, poor fit, discomfort, and interference of eyeglasses with task performance. Respondents who had received training regarding machine operating parameters adjusted those parameters to reduce their radiation dose during procedures significantly more frequently than did respondents who had not received training., Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: On the basis of the self-reported suboptimal radiation safety practices among veterinary fluoroscopy users, we recommend formal incorporation of radiation safety education into residency training programs. All fluoroscopy machine operators should be trained regarding the machine operating parameters that can be adjusted to reduce occupational radiation exposure.

Although manual restraint for small animal diagnostic radiography is common, worker protection is often not optimized, particularly for hands and eyes. Radiation safety training videos generally include hours of material on content other than personal protective equipment (PPE), have limited content, if any, on reducing dose to the lens of the eye, and are presented at the level of veterinary professionals. The objectives of this prospective, observational study were to develop a short, open access video training intervention at the layperson level, focused on proper use of PPE, and to test the effectiveness of the training video in changing behavior of workers. The use of PPE, optimal head position, and body position relative to the source of scattered radiation were compared before and after the video training was completed by workers. Results of unconditional and multivariable analyses were similar. In final multivariable analysis, workers wore gloves correctly more frequently (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-2.59; P < .001) and wore eyewear more frequently (OR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.23-2.78; P = .003) after completing the training intervention. Workers also had an optimal head position more frequently (OR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.03-1.58; P = .03) and stood straight or leaned back more frequently (OR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.48-2.23; P < .001) after completing the training. The video training developed in this study is an effective tool that can be incorporated into a radiation protection program to improve worker radiation safety behaviors during manual restraint for small animal diagnostic radiography., (© 2020 American College of Veterinary Radiology.)

Open-palm hand shields are used by veterinary workers during manual restraint for small animal radiography. The objective of this study was to measure the reduction in scatter and primary beam radiation dose to the hand provided by a full glove and an open-palm shield, using a cadaver dog to simulate restraint by 2 workers of an awake, cooperative patient undergoing thoracic and abdominal radiography. Dose was measured for 30 exposures for each condition, for a total of 795 exposures. The mean percentage decrease in scatter radiation dose was 99.9% for a full glove and 40% for an open-palm shield. The mean percentage decrease in primary beam radiation dose was 98.4% for a full glove. To optimize worker protection, fully enclosing gloves should be used during manual restraint for radiography, and body parts should never be placed in the primary beam, even when shielded.

The use of personal protective equipment by veterinary workers during radiographic imaging is inconsistent. While the self-reported use of leaded aprons and thyroid shields approaches 100% in some studies, the use of leaded gloves and eyeglasses is much lower. Previous studies describing personal protective equipment use are based on self-reporting. Objectives of this prospective, observational study were to describe use of leaded personal protective equipment during radiographic imaging by veterinary workers, and to compare observed use with self-reported use. Use of leaded personal protective equipment during radiographic imaging by veterinary workers was observed over a 10 week period using two motion-triggered video cameras, and a questionnaire was then completed by workers on their use of personal protective equipment. Workers restrained the animal during 91.8% (753/820) of exposures. An apron and a securely closed thyroid shield were worn for >99% of studies. Gloves were used correctly for 43.6% (156/358) of radiographic studies. Leaded eyeglasses were worn for 1.7% (6/358) of studies. Correct glove use was more frequent during regular working hours than after-hours for both veterinarians (odds ratio 32.7, P = 0.001) and veterinary students (odds ratio 75.1, P < 0.001). The number of workers in the room was lower when animals were sedated (P = 0.002) or anesthetized (P = 0.017). Workers overestimated their frequency of glove use (P <0.001). In conclusion, workers use personal protective equipment less frequently in an unsupervised environment, and overestimate their use of personal protective equipment. Use of sedation or anesthesia decreases worker exposure to ionizing radiation., (© 2017 American College of Veterinary Radiology.)

Objectives: The objectives are to compare lead blood concentrations in veterinary workers using lead shielding with concentrations in a control population, to measure hand surface lead before and after use of shielding, and to compare hand surface lead with and without the use of disposable gloves worn under hand shielding. Methods: Blood and hand wipe samples were analyzed for lead using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Results: There was no difference in blood lead between exposed and control groups. After lead glove use, 69% (18/26) of hand surface lead samples from workers not using disposable gloves were greater than 500 μg, 42% (11/26) were greater than 1000 μg, and 12% (3/26) were greater than 2000 μg. Conclusions: If lead shielding use is unavoidable, disposable gloves should be worn, and skin should be decontaminated after use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES To describe self-reported radiation safety practices by equine veterinary technicians in North America and identify factors associated with these practices. SAMPLE 154 equine technicians. PROCEDURES An electronic questionnaire regarding radiation safety practices during the use of portable x-ray equipment was sent to 884 members of the American Association of Equine Veterinary Technicians and Assistants. Data were summarized, and various factors were evaluated for associations with reported safety practices. RESULTS 221 of 884 (25.0%) questionnaires were completed, including 154 by equine technicians who had been involved in equine radiography as x-ray tube operators, cassette holders, or both in the previous year. Lead apron use was suboptimal, reported as "always" for 80.0% (104/130) of tube operators and 83.1% (123/148) of cassette holders. Approximately 20% of participants never wore thyroid shields, and approximately 90% never wore lead eyeglasses. Almost 50% of participants did not have lead eyeglasses available. Although > 55% of participants always held the x-ray equipment by hand, 58.4% (73/125) of tube operators and 25.0% (35/140) of cassette holders never wore gloves. Cassette holders wore lead gloves and personal radiation dose-monitoring devices significantly more frequently than did tube operators. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Compliance of North American equine technicians with radiation safety recommendations by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements was suboptimal. Improvements in radiation safety training and education, strengthening the connection between academic institutions and private practices, and greater availability and requirement of personal protective equipment use by senior clinicians and employers might aid in improving safety practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE To describe self-reported use of x-ray personal protective equipment (PPE) by veterinary workers in Saskatchewan, Canada, and to examine factors that affected their use of x-ray PPE. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. SAMPLE 331 veterinary workers. PROCEDURES A questionnaire was distributed to Saskatchewan veterinary workers electronically and by conventional mail. Recipients were encouraged to share the questionnaire with colleagues. The questionnaire consisted of questions regarding radiation safety practices used during small animal radiographic procedures, including frequency of use of dosimeters and lead aprons, thyroid shields, eyeglasses, and gloves. Respondents were also requested to provide suggestions for increasing use of PPE. RESULTS 460 questionnaires were completed, of which 331 were returned by workers involved with performing radiographic procedures. Two hundred eighty-five of 331 (86%) respondents reported that at least I worker was always in the room during x-ray exposure, and 325 (98%), 291 (88%), and 9 (3%) respondents reported always wearing a lead apron, thyroid shield, and protective eyeglasses, respectively, during radiographic imaging. Two hundred seventeen of 327 (66%) respondents used lead gloves correctly less than half the time. Mean percentage of time that gloves were worn correctly was higher for workers who were required to do so by their employers than for those who were not. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results suggested use of PPE during radiographic procedures can be increased by employers making PPE use mandatory. Other respondent-identified factors that would increase PPE use included the availability of properly fitting and functional PPE and education of workers about health risks associated with ionizing radiation exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]