Occupational radiation exposure among diagnostic radiology workers in the Saudi ministry of health hospitals and medical centers: A five-year national retrospective study

Shubayr, Nasser; Alashban, Yazeed; Almalki, M.; Aldawood, S.; Aldosari, A.

doi:10.1016/j.jksus.2020.101249

Cited by 20 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study found that there was an increase in the AMED (22%) in 2020 (1.75 mSv) compared with 2019 (1.44 mSv). The AMEDs for 2019 and 2020 were lower than the annual dose limit for radiation workers (20 mSv) but higher than what a previous national study from Saudi Arabia estimated for RTs in RDs (0.88 mSv) (Shubayr et al 2021). Moreover, the percentage changes in AMEDs between 2019 and 2020 showed an increase in AMEDs for all modalities except in MG (−2%).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 63%

Investigation of the Radiographic Imaging Volume and Occupational Dose of Radiologic Technologists before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Shubayr

2023

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to assess occupational radiation doses for radiologic technologists (RTs) in Saudi Arabia shortly before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, considering changes in imaging volume during that time. This retrospective study included the imaging volume data and the RTs’ occupational dose records from a central hospital for 2019 and 2020. The occupational dose—in terms of annual and quarterly mean effective doses (AMEDs and QMEDs)—was estimated for 115 RTs using thermoluminescent dosimeter records. There was a 22% increase in the AMED in 2020 compared with 2019, though the overall imaging volume decreased by 9% in 2020. The percentage changes in AMEDs between 2019 and 2020 for general radiography (GR), computed tomography (CT), interventional radiology (IR), nuclear medicine (NM), and mammography (MG) were 45%, 56%, 9%, 18% and −2%, respectively. The highest contribution to AMEDs in 2020 for modalities was due to GR and CT procedures, accounting for 0.50 mSv and 0.58 mSv, respectively. The percentage change in imaging volumes between 2019 and 2020 depicted a slight decrease in Q2 (−1%) and a substantial decrease in Q1 (−10%), Q3 (−12%), and Q4 (−11%) for 2020. The overall percentage changes in imaging volumes in 2020 for GR (conventional and mobile), CT, IR, NM, and MG were −7% (−19% and 48%), −11%, 13%, −26%, and −46%, respectively. Investigating the changes in 2020 by comparing Q1 of 2020 (before the pandemic restrictions) with Q2 (during the pandemic restrictions and changes in workflow) revealed that the QMED during Q2 increased by 5% with a 17.4% decrease in the imaging volume. However, CT procedures were increased by 11.1% during the pandemic restrictions in Q2 of 2020, with an increase in the corresponding QMED of 66%. Moreover, mobile GR procedures increased by 21% in Q2 of 2020 compared to Q1. This study indicated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on imaging volume and occupational dose. Overall, the study observed a decrease in the imaging volume and an increase in RTs’ effective doses by 2020. However, there was an increase in mobile GR and CT examinations during the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions in 2020. This study suggested that the increased mobile GR and CT examinations contributed to greater effective doses for RTs in 2020.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 63%