Search

The terms “notifications” and “alerts” for medical exposures are used by several national and international organisations. Recommendations for CT scanners have been published by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Some interventional radiology societies as well as national authorities have also published dose notifications for fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures. Notifications and alerts may also be useful for optimisation and to avoid unintended and accidental exposures. The main interest in using these values for high-dose procedures (CT and interventional) is to optimise imaging procedures, reducing the probability of stochastic effects and avoiding tissue reactions. Alerts in X-ray systems may be considered before procedures (as in CT), during procedures (in some interventional radiology systems), and after procedures, when the patient radiation dose results are known and processed. This review summarises the different uses of notifications and alerts to help in optimisation for CT and for fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures as well as in the analysis of unintended and accidental medical exposures. The paper also includes cautions in setting the alert values and discusses the benefits of using patient dose management systems for the alerts, their registry and follow-up, and the differences between notifications, alerts, and trigger levels for individual procedures and the terms used for the collective approach, such as diagnostic reference levels. Key Points: • Notifications and alerts on patient dose values for computed tomography (CT) and fluoroscopy-guided interventional procedures (FGIP) allow to improve radiation safety and contribute to the avoidance of radiation injuries and unintended and accidental exposures. • Alerts may be established before the imaging procedures (as in CT) or during and after the procedures as for FGIP. • Dose management systems should include notifications and alerts and their registry for the hospital quality programmes. © 2022, The Author(s).

The European Directive 2013/59/EURATOM requires member states of the European Union to ensure justification and optimisation of the radiological procedures and to include information on patient exposure as part of the report of the examinations. The EuroSafe Imaging campaign of the European Society of Radiology created a working group (WG) on “Dosimetry for imaging in clinical practice” with the aim to help with the dosimetry aspects required by European and national regulations. The primary focus topics were selected and a survey among the experts of the WG, allowed suggesting some initial consensus approaches. For information on patient exposure, it was agreed to include the dosimetric values reported by the imaging modalities (validated by a medical physics expert). It was also suggested to prepare educational material on dosimetric quantities for patients. Individual optimisation was considered a challenge, especially for interventional procedures. In these cases, patient and occupational doses should be part of the global optimisation process and trigger levels should be defined to avoid skin radiation injuries. Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) always need to be considered for comparison with periodic patient dose audits. In the case of accidental or unintended exposures, a report should be produced for the Quality Assurance programme, together with an educational note to avoid the repetition of incidents. Dose registry and management systems should allow fulfilling the regulatory requirements of national and European regulations. In a second step, and after the initial experience with the Directive implementation, a wider survey will be considered. © 2020, The Author(s).

Describes a computer-managed instructional system used to formulate, print, and evaluate true-false questions for testing purposes. The design of the system and its application in medical and nuclear engineering courses in two Spanish institutions of higher learning are detailed. (RAO)

An experience with an automated infuser device at a university hospital is presented in this paper. Occupational doses at operators' fingertips were measured using optically stimulated luminescence dosemeters for two different scenarios: (i) using a semi-automatic system to prepare the fluorodesoxiglucose (FDG) injections that were delivered to the patient manually and (ii) using an automated infusion device that prepares and delivers the FDG dose. The accuracy of the activity prepared by the automatic system was also verified. Reductions in fingertip doses of 60 % using the fully automatic system have been measured. The difference between the programmed and the delivered activity was 2 %. The use of the automatic infuser in the authors' institution has led to a substantial reduction in hand radiation doses. But contamination risks, even though reduced, still exist; therefore, radioisotope manipulation should follow strict radiation protection rules to avoid incidents. Improved accuracy in dose delivery reduces chances of dose misadministration.

The equivalent dose limit for the eye lens for occupational exposure recommended by the ICRP has been reduced to 20 mSv y(-1) averaged over defined periods of 5 y, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv. The compliance with this new requirement could not be easy in some workplace such as interventional radiology and cardiology. The aim of this study is to evaluate different possible approaches in order to have a good estimate of the eye lens dose during interventional procedures. Measurements were performed with an X-ray system Philips Allura FD-10, using a PMMA phantom to simulate the patient scattered radiation and a Rando phantom to simulate the cardiologist. Thermoluminescence (TL) whole-body and TL eye lens dosemeters together with Philips DoseAware active dosemeters were located on different positions of the Rando phantom to estimate the eye lens dose in typical cardiology procedures. The results show that, for the studied conditions, any of the analysed dosemeter positions are suitable for eye lens dose assessment. However, the centre of the thyroid collar and the left ear position provide a better estimate. Furthermore, in practice, improper use of the ceiling-suspended screen can produce partial protection of some parts of the body, and thus large differences between the measured doses and the actual exposure of the eye could arise if the dosemeter is not situated close to the eye.