The state of occupational radiation protection and monitoring in public and private X-ray facilities in Edo state, Nigeria.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To find out the state of radiation protection and monitoring practices of the public and private X-ray centres in Edo state. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survey visits were made to all the functional X-ray facilities in Edo state and the available facilities identified, staff interviewed and collected data analyzed. RESULT: There are 18 functional X-ray facilities comprising 10 (55.56%) publicly owned and eight (44.44%) privately owned. Only two (20%) of the public and five (62.5%) of the private X-ray units have personnel and environmental monitoring. All the X-ray centers in both public and private hospitals have effective lead aprons. All the public (100%) and only four (50%) of the private centers have gonadal shield although none is using them on a routine basis. Qualified radiographers are available only in five (50%) of the public and six (75%) of the private centers. Only three (30%) of the public X-ray centers have the services of radiologists. Among the private X-ray units, five (62.5%) have radiologist while three (37.5%) have no radiologist. Only one (10%) of the public centers and one (12.5%) private X-ray centre have a purpose-built adequately designed X-ray unit with barium plasters and lead lining of walls and doors. There is also only limited lead lining of doors and walls in three (37.5%) private units while no lead lining or barium plasters are used in five (62.5%) of the private units. No X-ray unit in Edo state uses digital radiography or computerized information system. This means that lost hard copy must be repeated, leading to more radiation to patients and staff. CONCLUSIONS: There are inadequate radiation protection and monitoring practices in most of the functional X-ray facilities in Edo state with only five (62.5%) of the private and two (20%) of the public X-ray units monitored. There is poor adherence to the advice of the medical physicists due to the cost implications of the implementation.

Radiation protection practices of staff during extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy at Okada, Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: The study was designed to find out the radiation protection practices of radiologists and other staff involved in the first extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy in Nigeria, performed at Igbinedion Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Okada. METHODOLOGY: Some members of staff who were present when the extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) was used in the hospital at Okada were interviewed between November 2002 and August 2003. Radiology records of the hospital were studied. Literature search involved available publication on the procedure in local and international journals with interest in precautions to reducing radiation exposure. RESULTS: Only lead apron and lead gloves were used by the radiologists for radiation protection and shielding during fluoroscopy procedures. The fluoroscopy was the screen type with TV monitor. Multiple sessions were used in several patients with multiple pre- and post- treatment radiographic studies including contrast studies with average of two sessions per patient. All the patients were adults aged between 26 and 65 years with mean age of 42.5 years. 627-6000 shock waves were delivered over 45-135 minutes at intensity of 143-19KV depending on patients build and the size of the stones. The sizes of the patients varied from very obese with large bulk to slim built. Radiation monitoring of the staff and patients was not done. Staff believed that radiation effect from the lithotripsy procedure was low therefore adequate radiation monitoring and radiation reducing alteration in the procedure was rarely adopted. CONCLUSION: Extended fluoroscopy time, multiple fluoroscopy examinations, multiple treatment sessions and multiple x-ray examinations which increased both the patients' and staff's radiation exposures were noted. Proper radiation protection and monitoring of patients and staff are necessary to avoid the risks from low-level exposure to radiation such as in ESWL.

An audit of rejected repeated x-ray films as a quality assurance element in a radiology department.

OBJECTIVES: To find out the causes, number, percentage and sizes of rejected radiographic films with a view of adopting measures that will reduce the rate and number of rejected films. SETTING: Radiology Department of a University Teaching Hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a two-year period (1st April 2002 to 31st March 2004), the total number of x-ray films utilized for radiographic examinations, rejected films and sizes of rejected films were collected retrospectively from the medical record of radiology department. All the rejected films were viewed by a radiologist and three radiographers for the causes of the rejects which was arrived at by consensus. The data was analysed. RESULT: A total of 15,095 films were used in the study period and 1,338 films (8.86%) were rejected or wasted. The rate of rejected films varied from 7.69% to 13.82% with average of 8.86%. The greatest cause of film rejects was radiographers' faults 547 (40.88%), followed by equipments faults 255 (19.06%), and patients' faults 250 (18.90%). The highest reject rate (13.82%) was for films used for examination of the spine (15 x 30) cm size. This is followed by 9.92% for skull (18 x 24) cm films and 8.83% for small sized films (24 x 30) cm used for paediatric patients. Of a total of 1,338 rejected films, 1276 (95.37%) additional exposure were done to obtain the basic desired diagnostic information involving 1151 patients; 885 (76.89%) of these patients needed at least one additional hospital visit to take the repeat exposure. CONCLUSION: Rejected films are not billable; patients receive additional radiation and may even come to hospital in another day for the repeat. Radiographer's work is increased as well as that of the support staff. The waiting room may be congested and waiting time increased. The cost of processing chemical and films are increased, thus if work is quantified in monetary terms, the cost of repeats is high. Rejected-repeated film analysis is cheap, simple, practicable, easy to interpret and an effective indictor of quality assurance of radiology departments.

Radiation Protection Practices of Staff During Extra-Corporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy at Okada, Nigeria

Background: The study was designed to find out the radiation protection practices of radiologists and other staff involved in the first extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy in Nigeria, performed at Igbinedion Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Okada. Methodology: Some members of staff who were present when the extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) was used in the hospital at Okada were interviewed between November 2002 and August 2003. Radiology records of the hospital were studied. Literature search involved available publication on the procedure in local and international journals with interest in precautions to reducing radiation exposure. Results: Only lead apron and lead gloves were used by the radiologists for radiation protection and shielding during fluoroscopy procedures. The fluoroscopy was the screen type with TV monitor. Multiple sessions were used in several patients with multiple pre- and post- treatment radiographic studies including contrast studies with average of two sessions per patient. All the patients were adults aged between 26 and 65 years with mean age of 42.5 years. 627-6000 shock waves were delivered over 45-135 minutes at intensity of 143-19KV depending on patients build and the size of the stones. The sizes of the patients varied from very obese with large bulk to slim built. Radiation monitoring of the staff and patients was not done. Staff believed that radiation effect from the lithotripsy procedure was low therefore adequate radiation monitoring and radiation reducing alteration in the procedure was rarely adopted. Conclusion: Extended fluoroscopy time, multiple fluoroscopy examinations, multiple treatment sessions and multiple x-ray examinations which increased both the patients/' and staff/'s radiation exposures were noted. Proper radiation protection and monitoring of patients and staff are necessary to avoid the risks from low-level exposure to radiation such as in ESWL