The use of X-rays in medical
diagnostic radiology has increased globally. The medical use of X-ray for
diagnosis of illness is subject to the principles of justification and
optimization for the protection of exposed individuals. Medical X-ray accounts
for the largest exposure of humans to man-made ionizing radiation. Exposure of
individuals can lead to long-term stochastic effects. Over exposure of humans
in interventional procedures can also lead to deterministic effects such as
skin burns in the short term. Even though, measures are put in place to protect
the operators of the X-ray equipment, including radiologists, there are no
systems to protect patients undergoing radiological examinations. To circumvent
this problem therefore, this study was conducted to determine whether safety
precautionary measures necessary for shielding patients contact to unsafe dose
of radioactivity were being adhered to or not. The factors that affect patient
protection include equipment performance, operator knowledge and skills in
exposing the patient correctly to obtain the best diagnostic image with a
minimum dose to the patient and monitoring and evaluation of patient dose to
ensure consistency with Institutional Diagnostic reference level.
To achieve the study objectives
therefore, the level of protection patients received during simple radiographic
examinations in the Korle-Bu Teaching hospital and the Ridge hospital, was
evaluated.
A cross-sectional study design
was used in this research. A total of 175 participants were selected
conveniently from the Korle-Bu Teaching and the Ridge hospitals. A
selfadministered structured questionnaire was administered to obtain scientific
and personal data. The entrance surface dose of radiation was measured using
Multi-Purpose Detector. From the study, the performance indicator of protection
measured was 1.6 (80%), Safety operations by management 1.06 (53%), Safety
operations by radiographers 1.79 (89.5%), patients’ safety and knowledge 0.89
(44.5%), investigations and quality assurance 1.6 (80%), local rules and
supervision 1.29 (64.5) and clinical dosimetry 1(50%).
There were no radiation survey
meters in both facilities. Radiographers did not weigh patients to estimate
their doses. Majority of Physicians were unaware of the accepted exposure dose
of various segments of the human body. Due to poor record keeping, enquiries of
previous radiographic examinations from patients were not conducted. Finally,
patients at Ridge Hospital were exposed to relatively higher doses of radiation
even though both facilities were within the diagnostic reference range for Akwa
Ibom.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Problem statement
1.3 Justification
1.4 Research questions
1.5 General Objective
1.6 Specific Objectives
1.7 Conceptual framework
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE
REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
2.2 X-ray
2.2.1 Key components of the x-ray generating unit
2.2.2 How the X-ray machine works
2.2.3 Benefits of X-ray
2.3 Biological Effects of Radiation
2.2.4 Hazard and Risks of radiation
2.2.5 The goal of Radiological Protection
2.3 Role of legal owners of radiologic
facilities in ensuring safety.
2.4 Level of education in radiography
2.5 Knowledge in radiography
2.6 Dose assessment
2.7 Working Protocol
2.8 Record keeping
2.9 Quality control
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.3.2 Independent variables
3.4 Study population
3.5 Study sample
3.6 Inclusion Criteria
3.6.1 Exclusion Criteria
3.7 Study design
3.8 Sample size calculation
3.9 Sampling technique
3.10 Data Collection Tools
3.10.1 Questionnaire
3.10.2 Multi-purpose Detector (MPD)
3.11 Data collection procedure
3.13 Pre-testing of questionnaire
3.14 Data processing and analysis
3.15 Ethical considerations
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Socio-demographic data
4.3 Protection measures available at the
facilities.
4.4: Safety Operations at the facilities by
the Management
4.5 Safety operations by radiographer at the
facilities
4.7 Role of physicians
4.8 Patients Dosimetry
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
5.1 Introductory statement
5.2 Socio-demographic characteristics of
radiographers
5.3 Safety
measures available at the facilities
5.4 Assessment of safety standards at the
facilities by Management
5.5 Adherence to safety standards by
radiographers at the facilities
5.6 Radiographers’ enquiry and patient’s
knowledge on X-rays
5.7 Role of physicians in patients’
protection against harmful radiation
5.8 Assessment of patients’ dosimetry
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
6.2 Recommendation
REFERENCES
QUESTIONNAIRE
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In November 1895, Von Rontgen of Wurzburg, Germany,
discovered the X-ray while working with a Crookes’ tube (Berkeley, 1989). In
1896, Henri Becquerel also discovered radioactivity while working on X-ray
(Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 2015). Radiology is the scientific use of
X-rays and other high energy radiations for diagnosis and treatment (Sharma et
al., 2016). Radioactive material or device is any substance that emits
electromagnetic waves. The emission of electromagnetic particles is called
radiation and the disintegration or breaking down of the atoms into ions is
called ionization. Electromagnetic waves that are capable of disintegrating
atoms into ions are known as ionizing radiations.
The knowledge of the harmful effects of ionizing
radiation has since been documented. However, accidents that result in people
getting injured still persist irrespective of the considerable development in
radiation safety (Bengtsson, 1978).
Every material in nature has energy called the latent
energy, which is an inherent property of the material. All materials have a
fundamental elementary unit known as the atom. Each atom has subdivisions know
as protons, neutrons and electrons. When the atoms of a particular substance
have an unequal number of protons and neutrons, the substance is rendered
unstable in electromagnetic energy and will therefore emit the excess energy in
order to become stable. A radioactive material is therefore any substance that
is unstable due to an unequal number of protons and neutrons and will release
energy in a process called radioactive decay in order to be stable.
Radiation protection is a term applied to concepts,
requirements, technologies and activities that are aimed at protecting people
(Cunningham et al., 2004). Diagnostic and interventional radiology, are vital
parts of present day medical practice (Inkoom et al., 2012). Improvements in
X-ray imaging technology, coupled with developments in digital technology have
had a significant impact on the practice of radiology. This comprises
improvements in image quality, reductions in dose and a broader range of
available applications resulting in better patient diagnosis and treatment
(Heath et al., 2011). Nonetheless, the basic principles of X-ray image
formation and the risks related with X-ray exposures have not changed
significantly. X-rays have the potential for destroying healthy cells and
tissues; therefore, all medical procedures involving X-ray equipment must be
carefully controlled. In all facilities and for all types of equipment,
procedures must be in place to ensure that exposures to patients, staff and the
public are kept as low as reasonable achievable (ALARA).
Diagnostic X-rays account for a greater proportion of
exposure of humans to ionizing radiations (Inkoom et al., 2012). On assessment
of the global population dose of medical exposures to ionizing radiation from
1997 to 2007, the 2008 United Nations Scientific Committee on the effect of
Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) reports that medical exposure continues to be the
largest source of man-made exposure to ionizing radiation and it keeps growing
substantially (Inkoom et al., 2012). Though individual doses associated with
conventional radiography are mostly small, examinations concerning computed
tomography and radioscopy can be significantly higher. However, a
well-designed, installed and maintained X-ray equipment and the thorough use of
appropriate procedures by trained operators reduce undue patients’ exposure without
decreasing the value of medical information that is derived (Schandorf &
Tetteh, 1998). Mostly, X-ray machine operators are aware of the problems
associated with over exposures. However, the fundamental requirements are often
not adhered to.
Over exposure to X-ray beams, poor infrastructure and
unnecessary X-ray referrals are among factors reported to cause high exposure
dose to patients above international recommendations (Schandorf & Tetteh,
1998a; Schandorf & Tetteh 1998b).
According to the 1998 report of UNSCEAR the need for
radiation protection exists because exposure to ionizing radiation can result
in damaging effects that manifest not only in the exposed individuals but also
in their descendants. These effects are called somatic and genetic effects,
respectively. Somatic effects are characterized by noticeable changes occurring
in the organs of the exposed individual. The changes may appear within a few
hours, or after many years, depending on the amount and duration of exposure to
the individual (Harrison et al., 1983). Genetic effects however, are
characterized by chromosomal damage in germ cells leading to mutation that give
rise to genetic defects (abnormalities) such as leukemia (Akrobortu et al.,
2013). Busch (1997) reported that, while the amount of dose of diagnostic
radiation required to induce genetic defects may be small and may seem to cause
no immediate noticeable damage, they are an equal cause for concern because of
the ultimate consequences on the exposed individual.
1.2 Problem statement
The regulations for use of ionizing radiations (IRs)
in medicine and industry have been in existence for years now, however, some
health professionals, X-ray operators and technicians are still unaware of
these regulations. As such, the aforementioned individuals are often not
compliant to such regulations (Kyei & Antwi 2015). The knowledge, awareness
and adherence to these regulations are key to reducing the level of exposure to
IRs and the associated deleterious consequences (Dewi et al., 2010).
Secondly, most studies in radiology have focused on
the protection of the worker through the use of dosimeter (Breitenstein &
Seward, 2001). The perception is that, workers spend more time in areas of
ionizing radiation and as such, it is they who need protection. For this
reason, during simple radiographic examination, X-ray operators are stationed
in a separate protected room, leaving the patient alone in an area that is
charged with IR.
Finally, since institutional health and safety practices
stipulate that healthcare facilities should be places for acquiring quality
healthcare rather than contracting diseases (Brennan et al., 1991), it is
imperative to set up safety measures to protect patients undergoing
radiographic procedures or examinations.
1.3
Justification
X-rays are very useful in diagnosis and treatment of
diseases. However, they are ionizing radiations and can therefore lead to
various deleterious health outcomes such as cancers especially when there is
over exposure during radiological examinations. In view if this, the findings
of this study would enhance accreditation and regular monitoring of X-ray
facilities to ensure that only qualified personnel and good equipment are used
in radiological examinations necessary to ensure protection of patients against
unsafe doses of X-ray.
Also, findings from this research would add to the
knowledge of the roles that owners of Xray machines ought to possess in order
to ensure protection of clients against harmful dose effects ionizing
radiations. This will also serve as a protocol to be followed during employment
of qualified personnel and the procurement of certified equipment in
radiological examinations.
Furthermore, this study would provide critical
knowledge on the need for X-ray facilities to be manned/operated by only
technically qualified personnel who regularly undertake refresher courses in
order to ensure that patients are exposed to only safe doses of X-ray during
radiological examinations.
Lastly, this study would provide the critical
evidence needed to support the importance of standardized and regularly
maintained X-ray equipment and functional radiation monitoring and control
system in administering safe doses of X-ray necessary to protect patients
against excessive radiation exposure.
1.4 Research questions
1. Do
X-ray facilities at the Korle-Bu Teaching and Ridge hospitals meet
International safety standards set for patients?
2. Do
Radiographers at the Korle-Bu Teaching and Ridge Hospitals have adequate
training and certification?
3. Are
patients at the Korle-Bu Teaching and Ridge Hospitals exposed to safe ionizing
radiation doses that are consistent with international safety standards?
4. Are
physicians at the Korle-Bu Teaching and Ridge Hospitals aware of the harmful
effects of X-rays?
1.5 General Objective
To investigate the level of protection for patients
against unsafe levels of radiation doses during radiological examination in
X-ray facilities in Uyo
1.6 Specific Objectives
1. To
assess safety standards at the X-ray facilities in Korle-Bu Teaching and Ridge
Hospitals.
2. To
assess the level of training and certification of radiographers at the X-ray
facilities
3. To
determine the actual doses of ionizing radiation that patients are exposed to
during radiological examination at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital and Ridge
Hospital.
4. To
assess the knowledge of physicians on the hazardous effect of X-rays on
patients during radiological examination
1.7 Conceptual framework
Figure 1 describes the conceptual framework for this research
Legal owners of X-ray facilities set up rules and
regulations that ensure reduction in exposure of patients against radiation.
These legal owners also ensure that qualified X-ray machine operators are
employed. Periodically, they also advocate for in-service training to increase
the knowledge of X-ray technicians, which also help in the reduction in
exposure of patients to IR. Legal owners put in place systems to keep records
of the patients’ histories at the X-ray facilities. This ensures that
technicians keep records of previous encounters, thus reducing unnecessary and
repeated examinations. Such practices reduce the long-term effect of patient’s
exposure to ionizing radiation. Patients, who are also knowledgeable in
radiation related issues are also better equipped to protect themselves from
unnecessary exposure to IR by observing and adhering strictly to instructions
given.
Safety features at the radiological department are
also necessary to prevent overexposure of patients to ionizing radiations.
Physicians also justify X-rays in patients before they are taken. Lastly, when
legal owners ensure quality assurance, there is reduction in exposure of
clients to IR in the radiological departments.
Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete project material
FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!
+(234) 0814 780 1594
Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects
FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!
+(234) 0814 780 1594
Buyers has the right to create
dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when
you experience issue with the file received.
Dispute can only be created when
you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of
contents and content of the file you received.
ProjectShelve.com shall either
provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or
send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and
Conditions are applied.
Buyers are expected to confirm
that the material you are paying for is available on our website
ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone
through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE
BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.
In case of payment for a
material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of
ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that
is available on our website within 48 hours.
You cannot change topic after
receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.
Login To Comment