Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
There has been an increase in the numbers of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, which, in turn, has increased the occupational radiation doses delivered to healthcare practitioners. The aim of this study is to estimate a baseline for the occupational effective doses for five consecutive years (2016–2020) among nurses working in several medical departments in Saudi Arabia. A total of 3249 nurses were monitored from 2016 to 2020. Occupational effective doses were estimated using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD-100 chip) made of lithium fluoride (Li natural) LiF:Mg.Ti materials. An analysis of the dosimetry data revealed that the overall mean annual effective dose (MAED), range of the effective doses and the mean collective effective dose for nurses in selected departments during the study period were 0.85 mSv, 0.06–13.07 mSv and 46.51 man-mSv, respectively. The MAEDs for nurses were obtained from various departments, including the operating room (OR; 0.81 mSv), general X-ray (0.90 mSv), cardiac catheterization laboratory (cath-lab; 0.97 mSv), endoscopy (0.79 mSv), computed tomography (CT; 0.77 mSv), fluoroscopy (0.81 mSv), dentistry (0.92 mSv), angiography (0.91 mSv), nuclear medicine (1.01 mSv), urology (0.68 mSv), radiotherapy (0.67 mSv) and mammography (0.77 mSv). The MAED for cath-lab nurses was significantly higher than that for OR, CT and endoscopy nurses. The occupational doses among nurses in Saudi Arabia were below the recommended dose limit of 20 mSv. However, to further reduce the occupational dose, we recommend training and continuing education in radiation protection for nurses involved in radiological procedures.
There has been an increase in the numbers of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, which, in turn, has increased the occupational radiation doses delivered to healthcare practitioners. The aim of this study is to estimate a baseline for the occupational effective doses for five consecutive years (2016–2020) among nurses working in several medical departments in Saudi Arabia. A total of 3249 nurses were monitored from 2016 to 2020. Occupational effective doses were estimated using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD-100 chip) made of lithium fluoride (Li natural) LiF:Mg.Ti materials. An analysis of the dosimetry data revealed that the overall mean annual effective dose (MAED), range of the effective doses and the mean collective effective dose for nurses in selected departments during the study period were 0.85 mSv, 0.06–13.07 mSv and 46.51 man-mSv, respectively. The MAEDs for nurses were obtained from various departments, including the operating room (OR; 0.81 mSv), general X-ray (0.90 mSv), cardiac catheterization laboratory (cath-lab; 0.97 mSv), endoscopy (0.79 mSv), computed tomography (CT; 0.77 mSv), fluoroscopy (0.81 mSv), dentistry (0.92 mSv), angiography (0.91 mSv), nuclear medicine (1.01 mSv), urology (0.68 mSv), radiotherapy (0.67 mSv) and mammography (0.77 mSv). The MAED for cath-lab nurses was significantly higher than that for OR, CT and endoscopy nurses. The occupational doses among nurses in Saudi Arabia were below the recommended dose limit of 20 mSv. However, to further reduce the occupational dose, we recommend training and continuing education in radiation protection for nurses involved in radiological procedures.
The monitoring of radiation workers’ (RWs) occupational doses resulting from working in different applications is essential to comply with the recommended dose limit (20 mSv) and to establish a reference level for the annual occupational dose. In this study, the thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) records of 58,156 RWs in the medical and industrial fields were collected and analysed to assess the annual occupational dose—in terms of mean annual effective dose (AMED). The RWs in the medical field included workers in diagnostic radiology (DR), nuclear medicine (NM), radiotherapy (RT), dentistry (Dent.), interventional radiology (IR), and operating rooms (OR). The RWs in the industrial field included road industry workers who used nuclear moisture density gauges (PCRI), workers in the phosphate mining industry (PMI), and workers in cyclotron facilities (CF). The AMED ± SD was 0.88 ± 0.56 mSv for DR, 1.22 ± 1.01 mSv for NM, 0.73 ± 0.49 mSv for RT, 0.78 ± 0.48 mSv for Dent., 0.89 ± 0.57 mSv for IR, 0.59 ± 0.45 mSv for OR, 0.80 ± 0.46 mSv for PCRI, 0.66 ± 0.45 mSv for PMI, and 1.60 ± 1.46 mSv for CF. The results showed significant differences in the AMEDs among the workers (p = 0.001). The highest AMEDs in the medical and industrial fields were those of NM and CF workers, respectively. However, the AMEDs for the RWs in both fields were below the annual recommended occupational dose limit and 72% were below the public dose limit (1 mSv).
The study aims to investigate dentists’ knowledge and consideration of radiation in relation to their referral practices and use of referral guidelines for imaging in Saudi Arabia. A cross-sectional study was conducted among dentists in different occupational positions in Saudi Arabia. The analysis showed that 68% of the dentists knew of imaging referral guidelines to consult before ordering an imaging exam. However, more than a quarter of the sample did not use them. More than half of responders estimated the average effective dose correctly for intraoral radiography, 44.8% for panoramic radiography, 53.4% for cone beam dental computed tomography (CT) and 47.8% for a study of dental implants/jaws using CT. Limited radiation knowledge and lack of use of proper referral guidelines among dentists indicate that the imaging referral justification process must be improved. The study concluded that radiation knowledge plays a critical role regarding image justification in dental clinics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.