E1972. Occupational Radiation Exposure Monitoring Using nanoDot Dosimeter
Authors
Mihir Patel;
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Juri Bassuner;
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Alexa Levey;
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Richard Tapnio;
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Background
Detrimental effects of radiation exposure have been well described, and radiologists who are constantly exposed to fluoroscopy are at high risk for these effects. Current measurements of cumulative radiation doses are reported out at monthly intervals, and often delay the ability to implement protective measures in a timely manner. Additionally, as trainees rotate on a monthly basis, reports of personal exposure are often provided after the completion of their rotation, limiting knowledge of dosage and ability to implement reduction techniques. Therefore, by providing real time feedback and measurements of radiosensitive regions, operators can be cognizant of their exposure and implement techniques of radiation protection in a timely manner.
Educational Goals / Teaching Points
The goal of this study is to increase awareness of personal radiation doses by providing daily feedback to interventional radiologists, allowing real time information to help assist in radiation dose minimization. The secondary objective is to increase overall interventional radiologist and resident knowledge of effects of radiation doses, by performing pre- and post-evaluations on a monthly basis.
Key Anatomic/Physiologic Issues and Imaging Findings/Techniques
At the start of each day, the nanoDot was applied to the subjects thyroid collar, or inner bridge of protective eyewear to measure a lens dose. The nanoDots were read within 24hrs and reported to the subject the following day. Information collected included radiation dose exposure, badge location, date, number and type of procedures performed daily, and cumulative radiation readings from the fluoroscopy unit. These values will be compared to prior data of operator radiation exposure on an annual basis. A pre- and post-evaluation was given to the involved subjects. Subjects were surveyed at the beginning of the monitoring period, and asked to check your occupational dose exposure on a monthly basis, know how to find your cumulative occupational dose, know what the annual occupational dose limits are for IR, know how to reduce dose during a procedure, believe seeing your occupational dose daily would change your practice. Initial results from pre-evaluation surveys demonstrate an overall lack of knowledge of radiation regulation guidelines and methods of dose reduction amongst the participating subjects. Therefore, we believe providing real-time radiation exposure feedback will result in overall reduced occupational exposure (and, in turn, patient exposure), along with increased overall knowledge of radiation effects in our ongoing study.
Conclusion
Current measurements of cumulative radiation doses provided to interventional radiologists on a monthly basis result in delays of radiation protection and minimization attempts. Additionally, radiation dose to the lens is estimated based on overall exposure dose. By providing real time feedback on radiation exposure levels, subjects can actively work on minimizing radiation exposure to both themselves and their patients. By performing a pre- and post-intervention evaluation, increase in overall knowledge of radiation effects to humans can be measured.
