Search

To evaluate the impact of the Phase 1 COVID-19 (C19) outbreak on Italian Radiographers.COVID-19 has spread rapidly worldwide. Many patients underwent radiological examinations, leading to a high risk of infection within the radiology department's staff. Italy was the first-hit European country to face the COVID-19 outbreak and the impact on radiographers was huge. An online survey was disseminated to investigate the involvement and working environment of Italian radiographers during the first outbreak of COVID-19.Of the 840 responders, 65% were men. The majority of the responding Health-care Workers (HCW) was represented by radiographers (96%), from high-prevalence regions (82%; p.05). Forty-five percent were involved in the activation of the protocol for the management of COVID-19 positive patients, without exhaustive indication for Plain Radiography and Computed Tomography (CT). Only 17% of hospitals counted on available guidelines for serious infections (p0.05). Diagnostic examinations were mainly performed by a single radiographer (62%). Many professionals (69%) confirmed wearing all indispensable PPE in case of COVID-19 positive patients.The primary objective of management strategies should be to redact standardized policies for the safeguarding of patient's health and operator's safety. All front-line workers, including radiographers working in diagnostic services, should be involved in the decision-making process to generate wellness and awareness.

Since the spread of Covid-19 outbreak, healthcare workers (HCWs) have faced an unprecedented and unpredictable situation on the frontlines. The aim of this document is therefore to provide useful and operative recommendations to radiographers who perform imaging services, such as chest X-ray (XR) and Computer Tomography (CT) scans to three types of patients: negative, suspected or suffering from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome by Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). It is paramount to design two different paths’ layouts for patients entering the Radiology Department. One path should care for the confirmed and suspected SARS-CoV-2 patients, whereas the other path should be for negative patients. A setting envisaging two radiographers is highly recommended when managing Covid-19 patients. One radiographer fully-equipped with proper personal protective equipment (PPE) should deal with the patient in the scanning or x-ray room. The second one should stay in the console room wearing essential PPE. Disinfection plays a crucial role in reducing the risk of disease transmission. Moreover, having clear protocols is key to ensure personal safety and avoid cross-infections. Taking care of patients and HCWs, such as radiographers, is crucial to minimize the risk of disease transmission. Within a Radiology Department, different designed pathways should be taken into consideration both for everyday and epidemic/pandemic healthcare situations. Though Covid-19 pandemic has been a harsh experience in terms of world health and care systems for patients and health professionals - being radiographers among the most involved - we must not miss this chance to learn from what happened. There is the need to address wider causes through learning and in order to prevent failures. The distinction between passive learning (where lessons are identified but not put into practice) and active learning (where those lessons are embedded into an organization’s culture and practices) is crucial in understanding why truly effective learning so often fails to take place.

Key Points Question What are the patient perceptions and knowledge about ionizing radiation used for medical imaging? Findings In this survey study among 2866 patients undergoing radiological examinations in Italian hospitals, a substantial proportion of respondents perceived their medical radiation knowledge as inadequate and had misconceptions about basic aspects of radiation protection. Better knowledge was associated with receiving such information from medical staff and having a higher educational level. Meaning These findings suggest that interventions to improve patients’ knowledge about radiation protection risks would be beneficial, with communication from medical staff potentially playing a determinant role., Importance Although imaging has become a standard tool of modern medicine, its widespread use has been paralleled by an increasing cumulative radiation dose to patients despite technological advancements and campaigns calling for better awareness and minimization of unnecessary exposures. Objective To assess patients’ knowledge about medical radiation and related risks. Design, Setting, and Participants A survey study of hospitals in Italy was conducted; all patients in waiting rooms for medical imaging procedures before undergoing imaging examinations at 16 teaching and nonteaching hospitals were approached to take the survey. The survey was performed from June 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Survey respondents’ basic knowledge of ionizing radiation levels and health risks, earlier imaging tests performed, and information and communication about radiation protection issues. Results Among 3039 patients invited to participate, the response rate was 94.3% (n = 2866). Participants included 1531 women (53.4%); mean (SD) age was 44.9 (17.3) years. Of the 2866 participants, 1529 (53.3%) were aware of the existence of natural sources of ionizing radiation. Mammography (1101 [38.4%]) and magnetic resonance imaging (1231 [43.0%]) were categorized as radiation-based imaging modalities. More than half of the 2866 patients (1579 [55.1%]; P = .03) did not know that chest computed tomography delivers a larger dose of radiation than chest radiography, and only 1499 (52.3%) knew that radiation can be emitted after nuclear medicine examinations (P = .004). A total of 667 patients (23.3%) believed that radiation risks were unrelated to age, 1273 (44.4%) deemed their knowledge about radiation risks inadequate, and 2305 (80.4%) preferred to be informed about radiation risks by medical staff. A better knowledge of radiation issues was associated with receiving information from health care professionals (odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.43-2.03; P, This survey study examines patients’ knowledge of radiation used in imaging procedures.

Narrowband coherent electromagnetic radiation in the region of rotational and vibrational states of matter is of interest for numerous scientific and industrial applications, e.g., Microscopy, LIDAR, and Spectroscopy. In particular, LIDARs for measuring concentration distribution of atmospheric greenhouse gases, such as CO 2 , H 2 O, CH 4 , N 2 O, require frequency-agile ns-pulse sources with transform-limited optical spectra. Optical parametric oscillators (OPOs) are frequently used to realize such sources, but sophisticated spectral control is necessary to obtain narrow line stable output. In contrast to regular OPOs, the backward wave OPO (BWOPO) inherently provides a stable, narrow linewidth output [1] – [3] . It’s realization requires sub-micrometer domain structures for quasi-phase matching, which for bulk samples so far only have been demonstrated using periodically poled Rb-doped KTiOPO 4 (PPRKTP) [1] – [2] . Furthermore, KTP is a well-established material with good transparency in the region of 0.4-3.2 µm, high nonlinear coefficient, and high damage threshold. In this work we investigate a master oscillator-power amplifier setup comprising a BWOPO-seeded optical parametric amplifier (OPA) to generate transform-limited nanosecond pulses in the spectral range close to 2 µm.

Objectives To assess the influence of the CT localizer radiograph on the automatic tube current modulation system of 7 CT scanners produced by 4 different CT manufacturers. Methods The influence of the localizer orientation, table height, tube current and tube potential values on the radiation dose of the related CT scan were evaluated. Images were acquired by using an anthropomorphic phantom positioned in the CT gantry isocenter as well as from -6 cm to +6 cm vertically to the isocenter. Results Vertical movement of the CT table height affected the radiation dose in all scanners using anterior-posterior or a posterior-anterior localizer orientation albeit differently, depending on the manufacturer; only in 1/7 scanner no influence was observed. The latero-lateral localizer orientation proved to be more effective in limiting the influence of the vertical miscentering in all scanners. Changing localizer's tube voltage influenced the scan radiation dose in scanners produced by two manufacturers, while no significant effect was observed in scanners produced by the other two manufacturers. No significant dose variation was observed in 6/7 scanners when changing the localizer's tube current. Conclusion Localizer radiograph shows a significant influence on the radiation exposure but with different outcomes depending on the manufacturer of the CT scanner. Radiologists and radiographers should have a thorough understanding of these differences to assure patients the best examination in terms of radiation dose and image quality.