Radiation management and credentialing of fluoroscopy users.

During the last 15 years, developments in X-ray technologies have substantially improved the ability of practitioners to treat patients using fluoroscopically guided interventional techniques. Many of these procedures require a greater use of fluoroscopy and more recording of images. This increases the potential for radiation-induced dermatitis and epilation, as well as severe radiation-induced burns to patients. Many fluoroscope operators are untrained in radiation management and do not realize that these procedures increase the risk of radiation injury and radiation-induced cancer in personnel as well as patients. The hands of long-time fluoroscope operators in some cases exhibit radiation damage-especially when sound radiation protection practices have not been followed. In response, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health of the United States Food and Drug Administration has issued an Advisory calling for proper training of operators. Hospitals and administrators need to support and enforce the need for this training by requiring documentation of credentials in radiation management as a prerequisite for obtaining fluoroscopy privileges. A concerted effort on the part of professional medical organizations and regulatory agencies will be required to train fluoroscopy users to prevent physicians from unwittingly imparting serious radiation injuries to their patients.

Recent history of the shielding of medical x-ray imaging facilities.

Since the discovery of x rays by Roentgen in 1895, a progression of reports containing recommendations to reduce the hazards from this "invisible light" have been published. These reports, generated by a number of expert national and international bodies, issued ever-evolving protection guidelines for shielding radiation workers and members of the public from the potential health effects of this radiation. In recent years, significant changes have been made in the recommended dose limits, and a number of articles that provide updated shielding data, parameters, and methodologies for x-ray imaging facilities have been published. Scientific Committee 9 (SC9) of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) (formed with the support of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine), was given the charge of reviewing the literature and updating the NCRP shielding recommendations for x rays used for medical imaging purposes (i.e., for diagnostic and interventional procedures). This article focuses on the new data and models presented in these recent publications and on the recommendations of the current NCRP report, produced by SC9, for the design of radiation barriers in medical imaging facilities.

Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact.

Reference values (RVs) are recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine for four radiographic projections, computed tomography, fluoroscopy, and dental radiography. RVs are used to compare radiation doses from individual pieces of radiographic equipment with doses from similar equipment assessed in national surveys. RVs recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine have been developed from the Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends survey performed by the state radiation protection agencies with the cooperation and support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, and the American College of Radiology. The RVs selected by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine represent, approximately, the 80th percentile of the survey distributions. Consequently, equipment exceeding the RVs is using higher radiation doses than is 80% of the equipment in the surveys. Radiation doses for specific projections, with standard phantoms, should be measured annually, as recommended by the American College of Radiology. When the RVs are exceeded, the medical physicist should investigate the cause and determine, in cooperation with the responsible radiologist, whether these doses are justified or the imaging system should be optimized to reduce patient radiation doses. RVs are a useful tool for comparing patient radiation doses at institutions throughout the United States and for providing information about radiographic equipment performance.

Important changes in medical x-ray imaging facility shielding design methodology. A brief summary of recommendations in NCRP Report No. 147.

The recently published Report No. 147 of The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements entitled "Structural shielding design for medical x-ray imaging facilities" provides an update of shielding recommendations for x rays used for medical imaging. The goal of this report is to ensure that the shielding in these facilities limits radiation exposures to employees and members of the public to acceptable levels. Board certified medical and health physicists, as defined in this report, are the "qualified experts" who are competent to design radiation shielding for these facilities. As such, physicists must be aware of the new technical information and the changes from previous reports that Report No. 147 supersedes. In this article we summarize the new data, models and recommendations for the design of radiation barriers in medical imaging facilities that are presented in Report No. 147.

High-dose fluoroscopy: the administrator's responsibilities.

During the past 15 years, developments in x-ray technologies have substantially improved the ability of practitioners to treat patients using fluoroscopically guided interventional techniques. Many of these procedures require a greater use of fluoroscopy and serial imaging (cine). This has increased the potential for radiation-induced dermatitis, epilation and severe radiation-induced burns to patients. Radiology administrators must realize that these high-dose procedures increase the risk for radiation injury and radiation-induced cancer in personnel as well as in patients. This article discusses particular clinical cases and describes positive, pro-active steps that practitioners and administrators can take to help prevent such injuries in their facilities. Unfortunately, with the exception of radiologists, a large proportion of physicians who use fluoroscopy have effectively no training or credentials in management of radiation or the biological effects associated with its use. In 1994, an FDA advisory warned that training of physicians for modern-day use of the fluoroscope was for the most part insufficient and needed to be expanded. Many prominent medical organizations such as the American College of Cardiology (14) and the American Heart Association (15) have published strongly worded position papers agreeing that there is an urgent need for such training. The consensus is that "rubber-stamp" privileges (16,17) to perform fluoroscopic procedures should no longer be granted. At present, the JCAHO is considering the implementation of a statement regarding JCAHO standards and privileges for practitioners to use fluoroscopic x-ray equipment. Whether or not the JCAHO becomes involved, it is becoming increasingly clear that all practitioners who use fluoroscopic radiation should be required to complete focused training in radiation physics, radiation biology and radiation safety. Training should include the pertinent aspects of radiation management in the clinical setting so that these physicians will be able to acceptably control risks to patients and personnel. The task of securing these materials and lecturers and documenting everything may fall on the shoulders of the radiology administrator or radiation safety staff. Completion of an approved educational program (with appropriate testing) provides the evidence needed by the facility to approve the practitioner's qualifications. In summary, it will take a concerted effort on the part of professional medical organizations and regulatory agencies to insure that the wealth of preventative information now available is disseminated to and put to use by these physicians who may fail to fully appreciate the potential for imparting serious injury to their patients. Even one radiation injury caused by lack of education is unacceptable.