Deliverable 7 - Scholarly Research Paper

1

6

Title

Student’s name

Instructor

Course

Date

Introduction Section of a Research Paper

Radiation exposure has been one of the main problems facing us today. The general population has an average radiation dosage of 2.5 mSv per year, accounting for roughly 15% of the total radiation exposure (Algohani, et al., 2018 pg3). CT scanning has led to an increase in medical exposure during the last two decades. However, 20% of medical exposures are clinically harmful. The field of radiology is a vital one in modern medicine. According to the National Council on Radiological Protection and Diagnostics' 2010 research, "Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the US population," the general public's radiation exposure has increased sevenfold since the early 1980s (Khaled, et al., 2018). On the one hand, there is a great deal of concern about long-term health impacts like cancer because there is no known safe dosage and adverse effects may take up to two centuries to manifest. Radiation dose and danger linked with radiological exams are poorly understood. Different studies have been carried out, with most participants being radiology staff. Still, there is a lack awareness of the risks of radiation exposure to non-radiology staff. This paper addresses the question about radiation awareness and lack of radiation exposure knowledge among non-radiology staff.

Training for radiologists and radiographers is comprehensive, but non-radiologists are only required to complete a radiation safety course to get a certificate of core knowledge. The legislative document specifies what constitutes core knowledge. Radiation physics, biology, dose reduction techniques, and radiation safety are all covered in this course of study. Radiation doses connected with many radiological operations are underestimated by non-radiologists, regardless of whether or not they have taken a core of information class. Therefore, this research question is critical because it illustrates the effects of a lack of knowledge about the relative radiation doses of radiographical procedures for non-clinicians (Alotaibi, & Muhyi, 2019).

There are various gaps in the previous studies regarding this issue. According to Hobbs, et al., (2018), there is a lack of knowledge about the radiation dose and danger connected with radiological exams. Researchers from various specialities, medical students, interns, and general practitioners have participated in many researches, but the non-radiology staff has not been fully educated about the dangers of radiation. Therefore, my research study will look at the non-radiology staff and the dangers they are in due to a lack of knowledge about radiation exposure.

My study results indicate overall poor knowledge of radiation dose and risk among radiology residents, fellows, staff radiologists, and technologists of the Department of Medical Imaging. This is not different from many prior publications showing similar results among medical students, interns, and physicians of various non-radiological specialties. To the best of my knowledge, no research has been performed exclusively among radiology workers. The lack of large studies of radiation knowledge among radiology workers could be because radiation dose and risks are part of their learning curriculum, and the assumption is that they would be experts in different aspects of radiation. The physicians need to have sufficient knowledge of radiation risks, as they would be the ones requesting a radiology examination in the first place. However, radiologists are expected to have a wider and deeper knowledge of various aspects of medical radiation exposure and should be available to guide physicians in choosing an appropriate imaging modality that would provide the optimal answer to the clinical question with minimal radiation hazard

As a result of this study, I will gain a better understanding of how non-radiology personnel misunderstand the risks patients face from radiation exposure during routine imaging procedures and how they fail to address common patient concerns effectively. Recommending doctors are the ones who initially seek testing; therefore, they must know enough about radiation to do so safely. This study is critical because it entails reducing the harmful biological effects of ionizing radiation during medical tests to the absolute minimum. Public health initiatives may aim to improve the quality of radiology treatment or reduce exposure to risk factors like ionizing radiation. Radiologists and radiobiologists may work together to get the data they need to practice evidence-based medicine, a cornerstone of modern medicine. I believe that our institution is not alone in this battle and unfortunately currently there are no published data on radiation knowledge to compare with other teaching institutions in North America.

I am trying to enforce the recommendations of the American College of Radiology blue ribbon panel, which includes improving medical physics training during residency, including radiation safety topics in exit examinations, regular in-service training for technologists on radiation safety, which we are currently conducting every three months, and advanced training of selected enthusiastic technologists who can impart periodic training to other staff (Amis ES Jr, & Butler PF, 2012). Periodic continuous medical educational (CME) activities are recommended among radiology workers (Niemann, et al., 2012), and we are working to make this mandatory for all, including the staff radiologists irrespective of subspecialties, to update themselves on radiation dosage and risks and provide the evidence of acquired CME credits.

Medical educational activities could help in providing optimal usage of imaging resources and minimize the unpredictable and unavoidable risk of cancer, albeit very small. Pre- and post-educational session assessments can be performed to assess improvement in these endeavors. Other measures such as including the patient’s total radiation exposure in the imaging report, and including the radiation dosages in the radiology request forms could also create greater awareness among physicians and 5 patients, and potentially reduce the injudicious usage of imaging, although this needs extensive discussion among physicians and patients for ethical concerns and practical difficulties. This study is critical because it entails reducing the harmful biological effects of ionizing radiation during medical tests to the absolute minimum. Public health initiatives may aim to improve the quality of radiology treatment or reduce exposure to risk factors like ionizing radiation. Radiologists and radiobiologists may work together to get the data they need to practice evidence-based medicine, a cornerstone of modern medicine.

References

Algohani, K. A., Aldahhasi, A. A., Algarni, A. H., Amrain, K. Y., & Marouf, M. A. (2018). Awareness of radiation protection measures among radiologists and non-radiologists. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 70(3), 371-375.

Alotaibi, A. E., & Muhyi, N. A. (2019). Assessing the radiation protection knowledge among non-radiologists. Surgery, 69, 57-5.

Amis ES Jr, Butler PF (2012) ACR white paper on radiation dose in medicine: three years later. J Am Coll Radiol 7(11):865–870

Hobbs, J. B., Goldstein, N., Lind, K. E., Elder, D., Dodd III, G. D., & Borgstede, J. P. (2018). Physician knowledge of radiation exposure and risk in medical imaging. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 15(1), 34-43.

Khaled, A., Ali, A., Abdullah, A., Khaled, A., & Majed, M. (2018). Awareness of radiation protection measures among radiologists and non-radiologists.

Niemann T, Nicolas G, Roser HW, Muller-Brand J, Bongartz G (2012) Imaging for suspected pulmonary embolism in pregnancy-what about the fetal dose? A comprehensive review of the literature. Insights Imaging 1(5–6):361–37