Bir Universite Hastanesinde Ameliyathane Radyasyon Guvenligi: Çalisanlarin Maruz Kalma Durumu, Farkindaliklari, Korunma ile ilgili Bilgi ve Davranislari

doi:10.12996/gmj.2019.61

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During fluoroscopic operations, professionals and students in this area may be exposed to ionizing radiation. It is advised that protective equipment be worn throughout radiation-causing processes, that the duration of the procedures be kept to a minimum, and that only required radiation-causing applications be performed [5]. In addition, according to the Radiology Services Regulation drafted by the Ministry of Health, the effective dosage for people who operate with ionizing radiation sources should not exceed 100 mSv for five consecutive years, 20 mSv yearly, and 2 mSv monthly [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, its ever-increasing use increases the population's exposure to radiation and poses a significant threat to public health [3,4]. In addition, epidemiological research indicates that the ionizing radiation utilized in surgical operations and diagnostic imaging causes cancer [5]. Non-ionizing radiation is radiation that does not produce ions in the materials with which it interacts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Preventative Knowledge and Experience of Anesthesiology Students with C-arm Fluoroscopy

Kaplan

Avci

2023

Eur J Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Long-term C-arm fluoroscopy exposes medical personnel to substantial radiation doses. Preventing this exposure requires protective equipment and radiation safety. This study examined anesthesia students' using fluoroscopy and preventive knowledge. Methods: This descriptive and cross-sectional study included 139 Vocational High School Anesthesia students. The "Healthcare Professional Knowledge of Radiation Protection" scale and a 13-question survey collected data. The scale was designed with a Likert scale and three sub-factors. If the total and sub-dimension item average score of the scale is below 5, it indicates that the level of knowledge of radiation protection among medical personnel is low, and if it is above 5, it indicates that the level of knowledge is high. Results: More than half of the students (59.8%) heard the radiation from the fluoroscopy device, the vast majority (82.7%) did not receive radiation protection training, 58.3% stayed away from the device while it was operating, and 70.5% stated that it is crucial to stay away from the device while it was operating. It was determined that there was a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) in the "Radiation Physics, Biology, and Radiation Usage Principles" sub-dimension of students who were male, in their second year of education, received radiation protection training, and offered reliable answers to a number of questions measuring their level of radiation knowledge. In addition, the research revealed a positive and highly significant correlation between the scale and its subdimensions. Conclusion: Although the scale scores of the students who received radiation protection training and had a high level of radiation knowledge were substantially higher than those of the other students, the average score of the students was less than 5. This indicates that students have an inadequate understanding of radiation protection. To prevent the negative biological effects of radiation on the human body, it is necessary to conduct epidemiological research, educate health care professionals and anesthesiology students about the effects and processes of this radiation on human cells, and provide frequent training. Radiation, radiation's biological effects, and radiation protection should be included in health students' curricula.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%