Awareness regarding radiation knowledge among clinicians practicing  in Bharatpur, Nepal

Jayanti Gyawali; Mukesh Mallik; Deepak Adhikari; Sanjay Sah; Pooja Shah; Surendra Maharjan

doi:10.7577/radopen.1994

Authors

Jayanti Gyawali
Mukesh Mallik
Deepak Adhikari
Sanjay Sah
Pooja Shah
Surendra Maharjan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7577/radopen.1994

Keywords:

Radiation knowledge, radiologists knowledge, radiation responsibility

Abstract

The major imaging tools used in diagnostic radiology is based on the use of ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation can be harmful to health, so before referring an examination in diagnostic radiology, clinicians must be aware of its harmful effects and a justified referral guideline should be followed. A cross-sectional study was carried out among clinicians who are not radiation professionals but do use ionizing radiation as part of their work to assess awareness regarding radiation protection and their current practice. The researcher was directly engaged in data collection using a self-administered semi-structured questionnaire. The findings of the study are presented in the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, current practice of respondents and knowledge regarding radiation protection. The result of this study demonstrated that despite the importance of radiation and its consequent hazards, the level of knowledge among referring clinicians is only 52.08% and their current practice is 60.55%. The difference in the mean score of knowledge and practice might have resulted due to clinician’s habituation with the practice but they have not updated themselves regarding radiation protection. Also, the study revealed that there is no significant (p>0.05) difference in knowledge level of physicians practicing in different hospitals. But the mean difference in practice scores of different hospitals is significant (p<0.05) i.e. a hospital with a large volume of radiological investigations (in our context a specialized cancer hospital) had better practice as compared to other hospitals. We find that an awareness of the hazardous imaging modalities due to radiation safety, its biological effects, referral practice and its perilous consequences is lacking. The deficiency in knowledge of clinicians might alter the expected benefits, compared to the risk involved, and can cause erroneous medical diagnosis and radiation hazard. Therefore, this study emphasizes the need for all clinicians to update themselves with the appropriate knowledge and current practice about ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.

References

Rehani MM, Holmberg O, López PO, Mettler F. International action plan on the radiation protection of patients. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2011 Sep 1;147(1-2):38-42. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncr259

Rehani MM. The IAEA's activities in radiological protection in digital imaging. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2008 Mar 1;129(1-3):22-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncn155

Rehani MM, Berris T. International Atomic Energy Agency study with referring physicians on patient radiation exposure and its tracking: a prospective survey using a web-based questionnaire. BMJ open. 2012 Jan 1;2(5):e001425. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001425

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007;37.2010;(2–4):1–332

Brenner DJ. Medical imaging in the 21st century—getting the best bang for the rad. N Engl J Med 2010;362:943-5. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe1000802

United Nations. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Volume I: Report to the General Assembly, Scientific Annexes A and B. UNSCEAR Report 2008, United Nations, New York, 2008.

Borgen L, Stranden E. Radiation knowledge and perception of referral practice among radiologists and radiographers compared with referring clinicians. Insights into imaging. 2014 Oct 1;5(5):635-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-014-0348-y

Borgen L, Stranden E, Espeland A. Clinicians’ justification of imaging: do radiation issues play a role?. Insights into imaging. 2010 Jul 1;1(3):193-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-010-0029-4

Bautista AB, Burgos A, Nickel BJ, Yoon JJ, Tilara AA, Amorosa JK. Do clinicians use the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria in the management of their patients?. American journal of roentgenology. 2009 Jun;192(6):1581-5. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1622

American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. http://www.acr.org/secondarymainmenucategories/quality_safety/app_criteria.aspx (accessed 26 Jan 2012).

Malone J, Guleria R, Craven C, Horton P, Järvinen H, Mayo J, O’reilly G, Picano E, Remedios D, Le Heron J, Rehani M. Justification of diagnostic medical exposures: some practical issues. Report of an International Atomic Energy Agency Consultation. The British journal of radiology. 2012;85(1013):523-8. doi:10.1259/bjr/42893576.

List of IAEA Member States. [Internet]. [Cited 2010 June 16]. Available from: http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/MemberStates/index.html .

Nepal Medical Council. 2017. http://www.nmc.org.np/ .

Nepal Medical Association. 2017. http://www.nma.org.np/index.php .

Nepal Radiologist Association. 2017. http://nra.com.np/ .

Bhatt CR, Widmark A, Shrestha SL, Khanal T, Ween B. Occupational Radiation Exposure in Health Care Facilities. Kathmandu University Medical Journal. 2013 May 1;10(3):48-51.

Subedi KS, Shrestha AB, Sharma P. Status of Radiation Safety and Emerging Challenges in Radiology in Nepal Calling for Strong Safety Measures. Journal of Radiology & Radiation therapy. 2013. 1:1106.

European Commission. Radiation protection 118: Referral guidelines for imaging. Mar. 2008.