Search

BACKGROUND: To conserve personal protective equipment (PPE) and reduce exposure to potentially infected COVID-19 patients, several Californian facilities independently implemented a method of acquiring portable chest radiographs through glass barriers that was originally developed by the University of Washington. METHODS: This work quantifies the transmission of radiation through a glass barrier using six radiographic systems at five facilities. Patient entrance air kerma (EAK) and effective dose were estimated both with and without the glass barrier. Beam penetrability and resulting exposure index (EI) and deviation index (DI) were measured and used to adjust the tube current-time product (mAs) for glass barriers. Because of beam hardening, the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was measured with image quality phantoms to ensure diagnostic integrity. Finally, scatter surveys were performed to assess staff radiation exposure both inside and outside the exam room. RESULTS: The glass barriers attenuated a mean of 61% of the normal X-ray beams. When the mAs was increased to match EI values, there was no discernible degradation of image quality as determined by the CNR. This was corroborated with subjective assessments of image quality by chest radiologists. The glass-hardened beams acted as a filter for low energy X-rays, and some facilities observed slight changes in patient effective doses. There was scattering from both the phantoms and the glass barriers within the room. CONCLUSIONS: Glass barriers require an approximate 2.5 times increase in beam intensity, with all other technique factors held constant. Further refinements are necessary for increased source-to-image distance and beam quality in order to adequately match EI values. This does not result in a significant increase in the radiation dose delivered to the patient. The use of lead aprons, mobile shields, and increased distance from scattering sources should be employed where practicable in order to keep staff radiation doses as low as reasonably achievable.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline (MPPG) represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiation requires specific training, skills, and techniques as described in each document. As the review of the previous version of AAPM Professional Policy (PP)-17 (Scope of Practice) progressed, the writing group focused on one of the main goals: to have this document accepted by regulatory and accrediting bodies. After much discussion, it was decided that this goal would be better served through a MPPG. To further advance this goal, the text was updated to reflect the rationale and processes by which the activities in the scope of practice were identified and categorized. Lastly, the AAPM Professional Council believes that this document has benefitted from public comment which is part of the MPPG process but not the AAPM Professional Policy approval process. The following terms are used in the AAPM's MPPGs: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Aim: To investigate clients' perspectives about outcomes of a telehealth residential unit (RU) program for families experiencing complex early parenting issues, and to explore facilitators and barriers to positive client outcomes. Design: Qualitative study using semi‐structured interviews. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with mothers (n = 18) admitted to a telehealth RU program. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Mothers reported short‐term improvements in their child's presenting issues (e.g. feeding to sleep, night‐time waking, co‐sleeping), increased confidence and increased partner involvement. According to participants, program outcomes were facilitated by a positive parent–clinician relationship, the accessibility of clinicians and being able to take part in the program from their own home. Barriers included difficulties with technical equipment and connecting with the clinician overnight, and challenges with implementing strategies in the longer term. Conclusion: This nurse‐led telehealth program was viewed positively by parents and the study identified a number of areas for improvement. Implications for the profession and/or Patient care: Telehealth early parenting programs provide an important way for parents to receive support with early child sleep, settling and feeding issues. Clinicians working in this area should focus on the development of positive parent–nurse relationships, enhancing communication and availability for parents during overnight periods and supporting parents to develop early parenting skills that will be applicable across the early childhood period. Impact: The study is the first to address client experiences of a telehealth RU program. Facilitators and barriers identified will inform service improvements to the program going forward, and similar telehealth programs for families; to ensure benefits and service outcomes are maximised for parents for such a crucial service. Reporting method: The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines for qualitative research were followed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditional small mammal survey methods (e.g., Sherman traps) are beneficial in certain conditions but tend to require substantial effort and funds and can introduce various biases. The recently described adapted-Hunt drift fence technique (AHDriFT) camera trap system (i.e., camera traps combined with drift fences) can survey small terrestrial vertebrates and does not require much time in the field. Our objective was to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of AHDriFT systems and traditional Sherman traps for surveying small mammal communities. We conducted surveys with both methods in four sites of varying habitat types at the Eagle Marsh Nature Preserve (Fort Wayne, Indiana) from February to July in 2020 and May to August in 2021. We conducted 640 trap nights (one trap set on one calendar night) of Sherman trap surveys and 551 trap nights of AHDriFT system surveys. We captured 192 small mammals of three species with Sherman traps and obtained 532 images of unique small mammal individuals of seven species with AHDriFT systems. Our AHDriFT systems resulted in two times greater species richness (Z = −6.21, P < 0.01), 16 times greater species evenness (Z = −4.83, P < 0.01), and 23 times greater Shannon's diversity values (Z = −4.87, P < 0.01) than Sherman traps. The AHDriFT systems also documented the presence of four species that the Sherman traps did not (northern short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda, common shrew Sorex cinereus, long-tailed weasel Neogale frenata, eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus). Overall, AHDriFT system surveys provided 1.5–5 times more observations per dollar spent and required 90% less time in the field than Sherman trap surveys. These results suggest that AHDriFT systems may be a more efficient and effective method of surveying small mammal communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline.Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances. Approved by AAPM's Executive Committee May 28, 2019 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]