In recent publications, such as Publications 117 and 120, the Commission provided practical advice for physicians and other healthcare personnel on measures to protect their patients and themselves during interventional procedures. These measures can only be effective if they are encompassed by a framework of radiological protection elements, and by the availability of professionals with responsibilities in radiological protection. This framework includes a radiological protection programme with a strategy for exposure monitoring, protective garments, education and training, and quality assurance of the programme implementation. Professionals with responsibilities in occupational radiological protection for interventional procedures include: medical physicists; radiological protection specialists; personnel working in dosimetry services; clinical applications support personnel from the suppliers and maintenance companies; staff engaged in training, standardisation of equipment, and procedures; staff responsible for occupational health; hospital administrators responsible for providing financial support; and professional bodies and regulators. This publication addresses these elements and these audiences, and provides advice on specific issues, such as assessment of effective dose from dosimeter readings when an apron is worn, estimation of exposure of the lens of the eye (with and without protective eyewear), extremity monitoring, selection and testing of protective garments, and auditing the interventional procedures when occupational doses are unusually high or low (the latter meaning that the dosimeter may not have been worn).

This report examines the dosimetry of ultraviolet (UV) radiation applied to dermatological treatments, and considers the definition of the radiation quantities and their measurement. Guidelines are offered for preferred measurement techniques and standard methods of dosimetry. The recommendations have been graded according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification of strength of recommendation and quality of evidence (summarized in Appendix 5).

A dose limit for the eye of 20 mSv, as proposed by the ICRP, could be exceeded by interventional clinicians. Data on eye dose levels for interventional radiologists and cardiologists provided by medical physicists from hospitals around the UK have been collated. The results indicate that most hospitals would require one or more interventional clinicians to be classified and several would have exceeded a 20 mSv limit. Dose data in the literature have been reviewed to derive factors that might be used to predict eye dose levels based on dose per procedure or kerma-area product workload. These could be used in prior risk assessments to establish monitoring practice. An alternative approach to personnel dose monitoring in radiology applications using a collar dosimeter worn outside the lead apron as the first dosimeter is proposed. The collar dosimeter would provide an assessment of eye dose in terms of Hp(3) and body dose in terms of Hp(10), which could be divided by ten to provide an assessment of effective dose. If Hp(3) exceeded 1 mSv per month, regular monitoring with a head dosimeter would be recommended, and if Hp(10) exceeded 2 mSv per month, then an under-apron dosimeter should also be worn.

Doses to the eyes of interventional radiologists and cardiologists could exceed the annual limit of 20 mSv proposed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Lead glasses of various designs are available to provide protection, but standard eye dosemeters will not take account of the protection they provide. The aim of this study has been to derive dose reduction factors (DRFs) equal to the ratio of the dose with no eyewear, divided by that when lead glasses are worn. Thirty sets of protective eyewear have been tested in x-ray fields using anthropomorphic phantoms to simulate the patient and clinician in two centres. The experiments performed have determined DRFs from simulations of interventional procedures by measuring doses to the eyes of the phantom representing the clinician, using TLDs in Glasgow, Scotland and with an electronic dosemeter in Gothenburg, Sweden. During interventional procedures scattered x-rays arising from the patient will be incident on the head of the clinician from below and to the side. DRFs for x-rays incident on the front of lead glasses vary from 5.2 to 7.6, while values for orientations similar to those used in the majority of clinical practice are between 1.4 and 5.2. Specialised designs with lead glass side shields or of a wraparound style with angled lenses performed better than lead glasses based on the design of standard spectacles. Results suggest that application of a DRF of 2 would provide a conservative factor that could be applied to personal dosemeter measurements to account for the dose reduction provided by any type of lead glasses provided certain criteria relating to design and consistency of use are applied.