Diagnostic Radiographers' Application of the Radiation Protection Principles of Justification, Optimisation and Dose Limits in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.

IF 2.1 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Wandile Witness Mkhonza, Shantel Lewis, Nicole Robyn Badriparsad
{"title":"Diagnostic Radiographers' Application of the Radiation Protection Principles of Justification, Optimisation and Dose Limits in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.","authors":"Wandile Witness Mkhonza, Shantel Lewis, Nicole Robyn Badriparsad","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.70122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The effective application of radiation protection principles is essential for minimising unnecessary radiation exposure and reducing associated risks to patients, personnel, and the public. This study investigated the application of radiation protection principles by diagnostic radiographers in Mpumalanga province, South Africa.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The quantitative cross-sectional study employed stratified random sampling and an online questionnaire to collect data from diagnostic radiographers working in Mpumalanga hospitals. The data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey achieved a response rate of 85.6% (n = 125, N = 146). Most participants (38.4%, n = 48) had 0-5 years of work experience. Referral forms often lacked sufficient clinical history (64.8%, n = 81), with diagnostic radiographers frequently supplementing by assessing the body region of concern (49.2%, n = 60). Lack of communication between radiologists and diagnostic radiographers was noted when referrals were incomplete (31.3%, n = 36) or when requested examinations did not correspond with the clinical history (32.8%, n = 38). Most participants (66.4%, n = 81) felt undervalued due to hierarchical structures. Most X-ray rooms had functional warning lights (80%, n = 84). Full lead shields (98.1%, n = 102) were widely accessible, and lead goggles (33.7%, n = 34) were the least accessible. Although most participants were issued with personal radiation monitoring devices (97.1%, n = 99), only 53.5% (n = 53) reported consistent use, and 33.3% (n = 32) received radiation dose readings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The application of radiation protection principles was inconsistent. Justification was achieved through referral assessment but was compromised by systemic barriers. Optimisation demonstrated suitable room designs but was limited by resource accessibility. Dose limitation was hindered by device usage and feedback despite high issuance.</p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13625152/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.70122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The effective application of radiation protection principles is essential for minimising unnecessary radiation exposure and reducing associated risks to patients, personnel, and the public. This study investigated the application of radiation protection principles by diagnostic radiographers in Mpumalanga province, South Africa.

Methods: The quantitative cross-sectional study employed stratified random sampling and an online questionnaire to collect data from diagnostic radiographers working in Mpumalanga hospitals. The data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Results: The survey achieved a response rate of 85.6% (n = 125, N = 146). Most participants (38.4%, n = 48) had 0-5 years of work experience. Referral forms often lacked sufficient clinical history (64.8%, n = 81), with diagnostic radiographers frequently supplementing by assessing the body region of concern (49.2%, n = 60). Lack of communication between radiologists and diagnostic radiographers was noted when referrals were incomplete (31.3%, n = 36) or when requested examinations did not correspond with the clinical history (32.8%, n = 38). Most participants (66.4%, n = 81) felt undervalued due to hierarchical structures. Most X-ray rooms had functional warning lights (80%, n = 84). Full lead shields (98.1%, n = 102) were widely accessible, and lead goggles (33.7%, n = 34) were the least accessible. Although most participants were issued with personal radiation monitoring devices (97.1%, n = 99), only 53.5% (n = 53) reported consistent use, and 33.3% (n = 32) received radiation dose readings.

Conclusion: The application of radiation protection principles was inconsistent. Justification was achieved through referral assessment but was compromised by systemic barriers. Optimisation demonstrated suitable room designs but was limited by resource accessibility. Dose limitation was hindered by device usage and feedback despite high issuance.

诊断放射技师在南非姆普马兰加省应用证明、优化和剂量限制的辐射防护原则。
导论:有效应用辐射防护原则对于尽量减少不必要的辐射暴露和减少对患者、人员和公众的相关风险至关重要。本研究调查了南非姆普马兰加省诊断放射技师对辐射防护原则的应用。方法:采用分层随机抽样和在线问卷调查的方法,对在普马兰加省医院工作的放射诊断技师进行定量横断面研究。使用描述性和推断性统计对数据进行分析。结果:问卷回复率为85.6% (n = 125, n = 146)。大多数参与者(38.4%,n = 48)有0-5年的工作经验。转诊表格通常缺乏足够的临床病史(64.8%,n = 81),诊断放射科医师经常通过评估关注的身体区域来补充(49.2%,n = 60)。当转诊不完整(31.3%,n = 36)或要求的检查与临床病史不相符(32.8%,n = 38)时,放射科医生和诊断放射技师之间缺乏沟通。大多数参与者(66.4%,n = 81)由于等级结构而感到被低估。大多数x光室都有功能警示灯(80%,n = 84)。全铅护罩(98.1%,n = 102)被广泛使用,铅护目镜(33.7%,n = 34)被最不容易使用。尽管大多数参与者都配备了个人辐射监测设备(97.1%,n = 99),但只有53.5% (n = 53)报告持续使用,33.3% (n = 32)接受了辐射剂量读数。结论:辐射防护原则的应用不一致。通过转诊评估实现了合理化,但由于系统障碍而受到损害。优化展示了合适的房间设计,但受到资源可及性的限制。剂量限制受到设备使用和反馈的阻碍,尽管发行量很高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences
Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
69
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences (JMRS) is an international and multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal that accepts manuscripts related to medical imaging / diagnostic radiography, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine, medical ultrasound / sonography, and the complementary disciplines of medical physics, radiology, radiation oncology, nursing, psychology and sociology. Manuscripts may take the form of: original articles, review articles, commentary articles, technical evaluations, case series and case studies. JMRS promotes excellence in international medical radiation science by the publication of contemporary and advanced research that encourages the adoption of the best clinical, scientific and educational practices in international communities. JMRS is the official professional journal of the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (ASMIRT) and the New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology (NZIMRT).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书