A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY TO ASSESS THE KNOWLEDGE OF RADIATION

EXPOSURES (PROTECTION & SAFETY) AMONG THE RADIOLOGICAL & OTHER

DEPARTMENTAL STAFF OF DIFFERENT HOSPITALS .

A project submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Degree of Bachelor in Radiology and
Imaging Technology

SUBMITTED BY: SAKSHI AGGARWAL

ROLL NO: 1498

IMPACT PARAMEDICAL & HEALTH INSTITUTE

G -99, LAXMI PARK ROAD, BLOCK – C
NANGLOI, DELHI – 110041

HIMALAYAN UNIVERSITY
BATCH – 2021-2023
 CERTIFICATE BY THE DIRECTOR

I, hear by declare that this project entitled " A descriptive study of radiation exposures
(safety & precautions) among the Radiological and other departmental staff of different
hospitals is a bona-fide and genuine project carried out by SAKSHI AGGARWAL, who
undertook it under the guidance of Ms Deepti Saroha, faculty of radiology at impact
paramedical & health Institute, New Delhi.

Date: …………………….

…………………….

Director
Dr Archana Aravindan
 CERTIFICATE BY THE DIRECTOR

I, hear by declare that this project entitled “ A descriptive study of

radiationexposures (safety & precautions) among the Radiological and other
departmental staff of different hospitals is a bona-fide and genuine project
carried out by SAKSHI AGGARWAL, who undertook it under the guidance of Ms
Deepti Saroha, faculty of radiology at impact paramedical & health Institute.

Date: …………………….

…………………….

Director
Mr kapish
 CERTIFICATE BY THE PRINCIPAL

I hear by declare that this project entitled “A descriptive study of radiation exposures (safety &
precautions) among the Radiological and other departmental staff of different hospitals is a
bona-fide and genuine project carried out by SAKSHI AGGARWAL, who undertook it under the
guidance of Ms Deepti Saroha, faculty of radiology at impact paramedical & health Institute,
New Delhi.

Date: …………………….

………………………………
Principal
Ms. Sulakshana
 CERTIFICATE BY THE GUIDE

I hear by declare that this project entitled " A descriptive study of radiation exposures (safety
& precautions) among the Radiological and other departmental staff of different hospitals is
a bona-fide and genuine project carried out by SAKSHI AGGARWAL, who undertook it under
the guidance of Ms Deepti Saroha, faculty of radiology at impact paramedical & health
Institute, New Delhi.

Date: …………………….

………………………………
Ms Deepti Saroha
Faculty of Radiology
 DECLARATION

I, SAKSHI AGGARWAL, hereby declare that dissertation entitled A Descriptive study to assess
the knowledge of radiation exposures (safety & precautions) among the radiological & other
departmental staff of different hospitals carried out by me for the Degree of Bachelors of
Radiology and Imaging technology under the guidance of Ms.
Deepti Saroha faculty of Radiology in the Department of Radiology at Impact Paramedical
AND Health Institute, New Delhi,
The interpretations put forth are based on my understanding and findings of the study and
they are not published anywhere in the form of books, monographs or articles. The other
books, articles and websites, which I have made use of are acknowledged at the
Bibliography.

Place: New Delhi

Date: ……………………………
SAKSHI AGGARWAL
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher MS. DEEPTI SAROHA
and our Director Dr Archana Aravindan who gave me the golden opportunity to do this
project on the topic A descriptive study of assess the knowledge of radiation exposures
(safety & precautions) among the radiological and other departmental staff of different
hospitals.

It helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about a lot of things related to
this topic.

Finally, I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing
this project within the limited time frame.

Thanks to all of you.

Sakshi Aggarwal
 ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: As we know that, radiation is an important tool of Diagnostic radiology & it is the
main source of exposure to human- made radiation. Absorption of ionizing radiation or the
amount of hazardous substance that has been ingested, inhaled or in contact with the skin.

AIM & OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the awareness of radiation exposures knowledge of how to control
radiation exposures, doses & risks among all medical workers, to assess the availability of radiation
protective equipment & increase the awareness of radiation exposure safety & precautions.

MATERIAL & METHODS: This study was observational, comparative and MCQ questionnaire based
or designed and carried out in different hospitals.
A questionnaire consisting of 20 questions in multiple choice format was distributed to 120
participants. Which consist of Radiographer, Radiotechnologist, Radiology faculty, Students, and
some others individuals.
The self-structured questionnaire was prepared & reviewed by experts.
The survey was online based and the questionnaire was sent to participants on mail. The sampling
technique was by convenient sampling technique and the sample size was determined which
resulted to 150 sample size. The data collection was by questionnaire administered randomly and
analysed with percentage table
120 participants responded and 30 participants did not respond.
The research was analysed to bring out the participants knowledge of radiation exposure, (safety &
precautions).

OBSERVATION & RESULTS:

This survey-based research revealed that a total of 120 responses were collected, out of them 75
are Males (63%) & 45 are Females (38%) with the age group of 20-50 ages. There were more males
than females.

This survey consists of 66 participants which have a radiology background & 54 participants who
do not have a radiological background. Participants having radiology background were shown to
have better knowledge about radiation exposures (safety and precautions) than those without a
radiology background.

CONCLUSION: It is clear that there is a need for more education and training in radiation
exposures, mainly for medical workers outside of radiology.
By improving awareness and knowledge of radiation exposures, so that healthcare workers can
better protect themselves and their colleagues too.

It is important to improve our knowledge and understand the importance of radiation exposures
in our work field. By implementing different types of seminars and different types of programs. We
can much aware people on radiation exposures safety and precautions too.

KEY WORDS:

• Radiation safety

• Radiation exposures

• Radiology department

• Medical staff

• Personnel monitoring devices

 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
4. PRINCIPLES OF RADIATION PROTECTION, EXPOSURES AND SAFETY
5. MATERIAL AND METHODS
6. OBSERVATION AND RESULTS
7. DISCUSSION
8. SUMMARY
9. CONCLUSION
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 INTRODUCTION

Radiation safety is a concern for patients, physicians, and staff in many departments, including
radiology, interventional cardiology, and surgery. Radiation emitted during fluoroscopic procedures
is responsible for the greatest radiation dose for medical staff. Radiation from diagnostic imaging
modalities, such as computed tomography, mammography, and nuclear imaging, are minor
contributors to the cumulative dose exposures of healthcare personnel. However, any radiation
exposure poses a potential risk to both patients and healthcare workers alike. Radiation protection
aims to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure with a goal to minimize the harmful effects of
ionizing radiation In the medical field, ionizing radiation has become an inescapable tool used for
the diagnosis and treatment of a variety of medical conditions. As its use has evolved, so have the
cumulative doses of lifetime radiation that both patients and medical providers receive. Most
radiation exposure in medical settings arises from fluoroscopic imaging, which uses x-rays to obtain
dynamic and cinematic functional imaging. Formal radiation protection training helps reduce
radiation exposure to medical staff and patients However, enforcing radiation safety guidelines can
be an arduous process, and many interventionalists do not receive formal training in either
residency or fellowship on radiation dose reduction. In particular, clinicians or medical staff that
use fluoroscopic imaging outside of dedicated radiology or interventional departments have low
adherence to radiation safety guidelines. Fluoroscopy is used in many specialties, including
orthopaedics, urology, interventional radiology, interventional cardiology, vascular surgery, and
gastroenterology. As radiation exposure becomes more prevalent, a thorough understanding of
radiation exposure risks and dose reduction techniques will be of utmost importance. There are
three basic principles of radiation protection: justification, optimization, and dose limitation.
Justification involves an appreciation for the benefits and risks of using radiation for procedures or
treatments. Physicians, surgeons, and radiologic personnel all play a key role in educating patients
on the potential adverse effects of radiation exposure. The benefits of exposure should be well
known and accepted by the medical community. Often, procedures that expose patients to
relatively higher doses of radiation—for example, interventional vascular procedures—are
medically necessary, and thus the benefits outweigh the risks. The As Low as Reasonably
Achievable (ALARA) principle, defined by the code of federal regulations, was created to ensure
that all measures to reduce radiation exposure have been taken while acknowledging that
radiation is an integral part of diagnosing and treating patients. Any amount of radiation exposure
will increase the risk of stochastic effects, namely the chances of developing malignancy following
radiation exposure. These effects are thought to occur as a linear model in which there is no
specific threshold to predict whether or not malignancy will develop reliably. For these reasons,
the radiologic community teaches protection practices under the ALARA principle

.
 AIM & OBJECTIVES

AIM

To evaluate the awareness of radiation exposures issues, risks of radiation among medical students
and other workers of different hospitals.

OBJECTIVES

• To evaluate the awareness of radiation exposures of how to control radiation doses and risks among all medical workers.

• To minimize the risk of radiation exposures.

• To use the radiation safety devices.

• Awareness and knowledge of radiation exposures protection & safety.

 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In 2016, Tae Hee Kim conducted a survey of 49 pain specialists was conducted anonymously in 2016.
The questionnaire had 16 questions. That questionnaire was about radiation safety knowledge and
efforts to reduce exposure. We investigated the correlation between radiation safety education and
efforts of radiation protection. We compared the results from 2016 and a published survey from
2011. According to the 2016 survey, all respondents used C-arm fluoroscopy in pain interventions.
Nineteen respondents (39%) had received radiation safety education. Physicians had insufficient
knowledge about radiation safety. When the radiation safety education group and the noneducation
group are compared, there was no significant difference in efforts to reduce radiation exposure and
radiation safety knowledge. When the 2011 and 2016 surveys were compared, the use of low dose
mode (P= 0.000) and pulsed mode had increased significantly (P= 0.001). The number checking for
damage to radiation protective garments (P= 0.000) and use of the dosimeter had also increased
significantly (P= 0.009). But there was no significant difference in other efforts to reduce radiation
exposure.

In 2016, David Gendelberg questioned whether a radiation safety educational program decreases
radiation (1) time and (2) exposure among residents and patients. This is a retrospective study in which
second-year residents underwent a 3-hour educational program regarding mini C-arm use and radiation
safety taught by our institution’s health physics department. We evaluated the records of all patients
who underwent a pediatric both-bone forearm or distal radius fracture reduction in the emergency
department 3 months before the educational program or after the program. To be included in the
study, records included simple both-bone forearm fractures, simple distal radius fractures, and patient
age younger than 18 years, and could not include patients with multiple fractures in the same limb. This
resulted in study groups of 53 and 45 patients’ records in the groups before and after the educational
session, respectively. Radiation emission from the mini C-arm between both groups were compared.

In 2018, Heeja Jung examine the current state of radiation safety education and its influence on
nurses’ compliance with safety procedures. Use of radiation in therapy and diagnosis has prolonged
and improved millions of lives, but it presents potential hazards for healthcare professionals.
Participants included 1,672 female nurses of childbearing age who had recently been exposed to
radiation-emitting generators or radiation. Quantitative data were taken from the Korea Nurses’
Health Study, the Korean version of the Nurses’ Health Study conducted in the USA. Confounding
variables included sociodemographic factors, duration of employment in a department where work
involved radiation, hospital's geographical location, bed size and hospital safety climate. Statistical
analyses included descriptive statistics, Spearman's correlation coefficients and multivariable ordinal
logistic regression. Radiation safety education for nurses and their compliance with safety procedures
have seldom been discussed in South Korea. However, as nurses’ safety is directly related to the
quality of patient care, additional safety education should be provided for hospital nurses to minimise
their occupational exposure to harmful radioactive substances in clinical settings.

In 2019, MM Abuzaid, starts cross-sectional study and conducted among radiographers; 210
selfadministrated questionnaires were sent to the participants. An analysis was conducted to
determine participants’ adherence to radiation protection practices, including the implementation of
personal protection, patient and environmental protection. The educational level of the
radiographers, their years of experience and sociodemographic characteristics were assessed and
compared. Forty percent of the radiographers’ practices proved relatively unsatisfactory in
implementing radiation protection. Thus, proactive steps and corrective actions are necessary to
improve radiographers’ knowledge of international standards of proper radiation protection practices.
In 2020, Heleen Hanekom starts an evaluation of orthopaedic surgeons’ knowledge, awareness
and everyday practices regarding radiation safety in an academic hospital. Questionnaire with
multiple choice-type questions was developed by a panel of experts and used to conduct a
descriptive study. The questionnaire had multiple dimensions, each evaluating orthopaedic
knowledge, awareness and practices, respectively. The study population included orthopaedic
surgeons rotating within the orthopaedic circuit of the University of Pretoria. The majority of
orthopaedic surgeons regularly use fluoroscopic imaging in theatre yet lack in-depth knowledge
and awareness regarding radiation safety associated with this imaging modality.

In 2021, David Anthony Provenzano starts a 49-question survey was developed based on an extensive review of
national and international guidelines on radiation safety. The survey was webbased and distributed through
the following professional organizations: Association of Pain Program
Directors, American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain
Medicine, European Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Therapy, International
Neuromodulation Society, and North American Neuromodulation Society. Responses to radiation
safety practices and knowledge questions were evaluated and compared with evidence-based
recommendations. An exploratory data analysis examined associations with radiation safety
training/education, geographical location, practice type, self-perceived understanding, and fellowship
experience. They found identified deficiencies in the implementation of evidence-based practices and
knowledge gaps in radiation safety. Further education and training are warranted for both fellowship
training and postgraduate medical practice. The substantial gaps identified should be addressed to
better protect physicians, staff and patients from unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation during
interventional pain procedures.

In March 2021 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) organised an online Technical Meeting
on Developing Effective Methods for Radiation Protection Education and Training of Health
Professionals with attendance of 230 participants representing 66 Member States and 24
international organizations, professional bodies and safety alliances. By means of a pre-meeting
survey, presentations by experts, topical panel discussions and post-meeting feedback to the meeting
summary, the meeting identified strengths, common weaknesses and possible solutions and actions
for improving radiation protection education and training of health professionals. Available guidelines
and resources for radiation protection training were also reviewed. The meeting discussion resulted
in a strong consensus for the need of a international guidance on education and training in radiation
protection and safety for health professionals, (b) an international description of minimum standards
of initial and ongoing competence and qualification in radiation protection for relevant professional
groups, considering the available recommendations at international and regional levels. The proposed
actions include provisions for train-the-trainer credentialing and facility training accreditation,
balance between the online and face-to-face training, improved on-the job training, as well as
improved inclusion in training programmes of aspects related to application of new technologies,
ethical aspects, development of communication skills, and use of software tools for improving
justification and optimisation. The need for making the ongoing training practical, applicable, and
useful to the trainee was highlighted. The international consultation initiated by the IAEA was
appreciated as a good approach to understand and promote coordination and collaboration at all
levels, for best results in education and training in radiation protection of health professionals.
Implementing such a holistic approach to education and training in radiation protection would
contribute towards qualification and competence of health professionals needed to ensure
application of high standards for quality and safety in medical uses of ionizing radiation.
In 2022, Alexander M Koenig, starts a study to evaluate the weight pressure on the shoulder as a
marker of physical strain caused by different radiation-protection devices. For the weight pressure
measurement, a pressure sensor (OMD-30-SE-100N, OptoForce, Budapest, Hungary) placed on the
left and right shoulder was used. Wearing different radiation protection systems, the force
measurement system was used to quantify the weight pressure. Measurements were acquired in still
standing position and during various movements. The free-hanging radiation protection system
showed a significant lower weight pressure in comparison to the other radiation protection devices.
Apart from this, use of a two-piece radiation protection apron or addition of a belt to a radiation
protection coat proved to be further effective options to reduce weight pressure.

In 2023, A Pimenta starts an online national survey was created to characterise the fluoroscopy
technology as well as analyse the frequency of body fluoroscopy-guided intervention procedures
(FGIP), RP education and training of the staff, and RP measures used daily. In Portugal, most
equipment for FGIP is single-sourced and have a flat panel detector.

In 2023, Eliseo Vano, measured by electronic personal dosimeters. One dosemeter located at the
Carm is used as a reference for scatter radiation. Data have been collected from five interventional
rooms. Dosimetry data can be managed for the whole procedure and the different radiation events.
Optimisation is done through auditing different sets of parameters for individual procedures: patient
dose indicators, occupational dose values, the ratio between occupational doses, and the doses
measured by the reference dosimeters at the C-arm, and the ratio between occupational and patient
dose values. The main advantage of this integrated approach is the capacity to improve radiation
safety for patients and workers together, auditing alerts for individual procedures.
 PRINCIPLES OF RADIATION PROTECTION, EXPOSURES AND SAFETY

General principles of radiation protection from the hazard of ionizing radiation are
summarized as three key words; justification, optimization, and dose limit. Because medical
exposure of radiation has unique considerations, diagnostic reference level is generally used
as a reference value, instead of dose limits.

General principles of radiation protection based on ICRP recommendation

The principles of radiological protection

In ICRP’s previous Recommendations, they gave principles of protection as fundamental for

the system of protection, and have now formulated a single set of principles that apply to
planned, emergency, and existing exposure situations. In these Recommendations, they also
clarified how the fundamental principles apply to radiation sources and to the individual, as
well as how the source-related principles apply to all controllable situations.

Two principles are source-related and apply in all exposure situations

① The principle of justification: Any decision that alters the radiation exposure situation
should do more good than harm.

This means that, by introducing a new radiation source, by reducing existing exposure, or by
reducing the risk of potential exposure, one should achieve sufficient individual or societal
benefit to offset the detriment it causes.

② The principle of optimization of protection: the likelihood of incurring exposures, the

number of people exposed, and the magnitude of their individual doses should all be kept as
low as reasonably achievable, taking into account economic and societal factors.

This means that the level of protection should be the best under the prevailing
circumstances, maximizing the margin of benefit over harm. In order to avoid severely
inequitable outcomes of this optimization procedure, there should be restrictions on the
doses or risks to individuals from a particular source (dose or risk constraints and reference
levels).
One principle is individual-related and applies in planned exposure situations. ③
The principle of application of dose limits: The total dose to any individual from
regulated sources in planned exposure situations other than medical exposure of patients
should not exceed the appropriate limits recommended by the Commission.

Categories of exposure

The Commission distinguishes between three categories of exposures: occupational

exposures, public exposures, and medical exposures of patients.

1) Occupational exposure

Occupational exposure is defined as all radiation exposure of workers incurred as a result of

their work. ICRP limits its use of ‘occupational exposures’ to radiation exposures incurred at
work as a result of situations that can reasonably be regarded as being the responsibility of
the operating management. The employer has the main responsibility for the protection of
workers.

2) Public exposure

Public exposure encompasses all exposures of the public other than occupational exposures
and medical exposures of patients. It is incurred as a result of a range of radiation sources.
The component of public exposure due to natural sources is by far the largest, but this
provides no justification for reducing the attention paid to smaller, but more readily
controllable, exposures to man-made sources. Exposures of the embryo and fetus of
pregnant workers are considered and regulated as public exposures.

3) Medical exposure of patients

Radiation exposures of patients occur in diagnostic, interventional, and therapeutic

procedures. There are several features of radiological practices in medicine that require an
approach that differs from the radiological protection in other planned exposure situations.
The exposure is intentional and for the direct benefit of the patient. The application of these
Recommendations to the medical uses of radiation therefore requires separate guidance.

For reducing radiation exposure, there are 3 principals: time, distance, and shielding .

1. Time
Radiation exposure can be accumulated over the time of exposure. In C-arm fluoroscopy
guided interventions, the time spent checking the C-arm fluoroscopy is related to the
radiation exposure. The longer the exposure time, the more radiation exposure to the pain
physician. Therefore, it is important to reduce the usage time of C-arm fluoroscopy. For
reducing the usage time, the physician has to improve his skill in intervention and the
radiographer has to check the X-ray at the correct location, and at the right moment without
blurred image.

2. Distance

A greater distance from the radiation source can reduce radiation exposure. The amount of
radiation exposure is not inversely proportional to the distance from the radiation source,
but is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. This means that double the
distance from the radiation source can reduce the radiation exposure not to 1/2 but to 1/4.
Therefore, maintaining a greater distance from the X-ray generator is a very effective
method for radiation safety. In a previous study of radiographers, two steps behind the
mobile support structure can decrease the exposure of the radiographer by about 80%. In
another study, being only 20 cm farther from the centre of the X-ray field can decrease the
radiation exposure by about 73%.

3. Shielding

There are many shielding devices such as caps, lead glasses, thyroid protectors, aprons,
radiation reducing gloves, and so on, for radiation safety during C-arm fluoroscopy-guided
interventions. Even though the protective effect is enough for radiation safety, no use of the
devices cannot protect the physician from radiation. In Korea, the use rate of the apron and
thyroid protector by pain physicians is over 80%. However, the use rate of lead glasses was
about 40%, and the use rate of radiation reducing gloves was lower than 35%. The radiation
shielding devices are expensive, and the use of shielding devices can be uncomfortable.
However, when a physician uses these devices, they can be protected from radiation
exposure.

Reducing the time of radiation exposure, a greater distance from radiation sources, and the use of shielding
devices for radiation protection are important. Even if pain physicians have to use these three principles, I
want to emphasize the importance of distance from the radiation source, because the longer distance from
the radiation source may be more effective than reducing time or the use of shielding devices. If a pain
physician decreases the time of radiation exposure in half, his radiation exposure will be halved. If a pain
physician uses radiation protective devices with double the lead equivalent thickness, his radiation
exposure will also be halved. However, if pain physician stands double the distance from a radiation source,
his radiation exposure will reduce to 1/4.
 MATERIALS & METHODS

• RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methodology adopted in this study to assess the knowledge of
radiation safety among different hospitals..

This phase of the study included selecting a research design, variables, setting of the study,
population, sample, criteria for sample selection, sample size, sampling technique,
development and description of the tool, content validity, reliability of the tool, procedure
for data collection and plan for data analysis.

• RESEARCH DESIGN

A survey research method was adopted for this research. This survey was cantered on the
knowledge of radiation safety among North India region of medical professionals. Therefore,
the research is in two parts:

The assessment of the knowledge of radiation safety among the medical worker.

The utilization of radiation among the medical professionals.

• VARIABLE

Independent Variable: utilization of radiation safety

Dependent Variable: knowledge of radiation safety

Extraneous Variable: demographic data

• RESEARCH SETTING OF THE STUDY

This research was conducted in different hospital of Delhi and Delhi NCR region.
 • STUDY DURATION

This questionnaire-based study carried out for the time period of 2 months from October
2023 to December 2023 at different hospital staff and other co workers.

• SAMPLE SIZE

Sample size of the population was 150 participants who fulfilled the sample selection criteria
were selected for the study.

• SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

The samples were selected by convenient sampling technique. The investigator informed the
selected samples about the study and obtained their written consent to participate in the
study.

• STUDY POPULATION

The study population was medical doctors, medical staff and internship student,
radiographers from different hospitals . The population used for this study is 150
participants.

• CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION

Inclusion Criteria:

Radiologist, Radiotechnologist, , Consultants , medical workers , radiographers, and students

were included in this study.

Exclusion criteria:

Those who were not willing to participate in the study.

• DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY

The tool constructed in this study was divided into five sections.

a) Radiation physics: 6 Total = 20 questions

b) Radiation patient dose: 3

 c) Radiation effects: 6

d) Radiation protection: 5

• ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

I. The ethical principles followed in the study were,

II. Freedom from harm and discomfort
III. Participants were not subjected to unnecessary risks for harm or discomfort during
the study period.
IV. Protection from exploitation
V. Participants were assumed that their participation or information provided would
not be used against them in any circumstances.
VI. Participants were given full rights to ask questions, refuse to give information and
also to withdraw from the study.
VII. A written consent was obtained from the participants initially for their willingness
to participate in the study.
VIII. A full privacy was maintained throughout the process of data collection.
 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND TOOLS

A hospital-based cross-sectional study was carried out at different hospitals, this study
included medical staff who work in health care professionals and radiology departments
such as X-rays, Computed Tomography Scans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Fluoroscopy,
Interventional Radiology, and Mammography, as well as some medical students who
pursuing diplomas, Bachelor’s degrees, Master’s degrees, and doctorates in Medical
Radiological and Imaging Technology. This study also includes faculty members. The study
was carried out from OCTOBER, 2023 to DECEMBER, 2023. In 2023, the study included all
health care practitioners from different hospitals.

The study was approved, and the self-structured questionnaire was created and reviewed by
the guide. It was only after their approval that it was shared with the participants.

The questionnaire contains questions regarding social-demographic characteristics,

fundamental knowledge of radiation safety, radiation exposure, and radiation protection.

A Google-form multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ) with 20 Questions total, including 6

questions assessing radiation physics, 3 questions assessing radiation patient dose and
measurement, 6 questions assessing radiation effects, and 5 questions assessing radiation
protection in common radiological investigations. The highest possible test score was a score
of 18. Quizzes were derived from many books, including S.K Bhargava’s, ISRT’s MCQ book,
and internet radiation-based quizzes. This is an academic institute and university that
communicates via SMS, email, and online social media platforms such as WhatsApp,
Instagram.

Data on the medical professionals, Health care staff, Faculty and Student was collected for
radiation safety as well as personal information. This was accomplished by the use of a
questionnaire distributed at random to 150 respondents, although only 120 completed the
form. After the surveys were distributed, respondents were given enough time to examine
and fill out their responses. The information was gathered, studied, edited, tabulated, and
analysed.

The acquired data was presented on a percentage table and examined as needed. For the
presentation and analysis of some data, pie charts were used.

The result of this qualitative data was checked by the Google – form itself during the
processing of the data collected from the questionnaire.
 OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

The cross- sectional descriptive study was conducted in different Hospitals to asses radiation
exposures (safety and precautions) awareness among 120 individuals.

After data analysis, the findings were as follows:

DISTRIBUTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN TERMS OF GENDER (n=120)

63% of the participants had Gender: Male

38% of the participants had Gender: Female

Distribution of Gender
DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE TERMS OF PROFESSION (n=120)

PROFESSION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Radiographer 17 14.17%

Faculty 7 5.83%

Student 10 8.33%

Radiotechnologist 30 25%

Others 56 46.67%

14.17 % of the participants had profession: Radiographer

5.833% of the participants had profession: Faculty

8.33% of the participants had profession: student

25% of the participants had profession: Radiotechnologist

46.667% of the participants had profession: Others

DISTRIBUTION OF PROFESSION
Table: Distribution of participants in term of correct responses (n=120)
S. No of questions Frequency Percentage

1 101 84.20%

2 76 63.30%

3 59 49.20%

4 83 69.20%

5 5 4.17%

6 65 54.20%

7 68 56.70%

8 36 30%

9 32 26.70%

10 30 25%

11 13 10.80%

12 19 15.80%

13 76 63.30%

14 65 54.20%

15 32 26.70%

16 22 18.30%

17 67 55.80%

18 52 43.30%

19 56 46.70%

20 25 20.80%
 QUESTIONNAIRE

• A survey of 120 participants in Delhi & Delhi NCR region on radiation exposures
(safety and precautions) knowledge might provide useful insights on the level of
awareness and understanding of radiation safety practices among medical staff and
health care professionals.

• Out of the 150 surveys issued, 120 we’re returned, with completed responses (100%
response rate). There were 75 males (63%), 45 females (38%).

• In our study 66 participants have a radiology background and 54 participants did not
have a radiology background.

• There were Radiographer, Students, Radiology faculty, Radiotechnologist and some

other individuals.

• There were 20 knowledge-based questions in this study. For correct answers total
knowledge score was 20.

• Furthermore, you can utilise the results of your survey to create targeted education
and more awareness campaigns centred on different regions, where participants may
acquire further knowledge or training sessions on radiation exposures (safety and
precautions).

There were 101 correct responses, 84.2% accuracy rate.

There were 44 correct responses, 36.7% accuracy rate.

There were 59 correct responses, 49.2% accuracy rate.

There were 83 correct responses, 69.2% accuracy rate.

There were 5 correct responses, 4.17% accuracy rate.

There were 65 correct responses, 54.2 % accuracy rate.

There were 68 correct responses, 56.7% accuracy rate.

There were 36 correct responses, 30% accuracy rate.

There were 32 correct responses, 26.7% accuracy rate.

There were 30 correct responses, 25% accuracy rate.
There were 13 correct responses, 10.8% accuracy rate.

There were 19 correct responses, 15.8% accuracy rate.

There were 76 correct responses, 63.3% accuracy rate.

There were 65 correct responses, 54.2% accuracy rate.

There were 32 correct responses, 26.7% accuracy rate.

There were 22 correct responses, 18.3% accuracy rate.

There were 67 correct responses, 55.8% accuracy rate.

There were 52 correct responses, 43.3% accuracy rate.

There were 56 correct responses, 46.7% accuracy rate.

There were 25 correct responses, 20.8% accuracy rate.

 DISCUSSION
Radiation exposure is the process of being subjected to ionizing radiation. It can occur from various sources,
including medical procedures, nuclear power plants, and natural sources like cosmic rays. Managing
exposure is crucial to minimize health risks.

Our study was titled ‘Descriptive study to assess radiation exposures (safety and
precautions) among radiological staff and other department from various hospitals .

The majority of radiological field participants got superior knowledge ratings as compared to
other departmental staff.

There were 120 individuals in the study, with an average score of 18 on surveys.

In our survey Male participants were 75 (63%) & Female participants were 45 (38%) . Which
results that make participants are more interested in radiology more than female
participants.

Most females avoid radiography because of too many reasons like:

• Perceived work like balance

• Lack of role models

• Societal expectations

• Subspecialty stereotypes

In our study 66 participants have a radiology background & 54 participants do not have a
radiology background. Participants having radiology background were shown to have better
level of knowledge about radiation exposures (safety and precautions) than those without a
radiology background.

Radiation exposures can have significant impacts on human health, ranging from potential
cancer risks to damage to living tissues. Understanding and managing exposure levels are
crucial in various fields, including medical diagnostics, nuclear energy & industrial settings.

Balancing the benefits of technologies that individual radiation with effective safety
measures is essential to minimize potential harm and ensure public and occupational health.

In comparison to the study of DAVID ANTHONY PROVENZANO, the current study findings
indicate that 90% of participant are aware of ALARA. This involves careful planning, use of
shielding, and adopting practices to keep radiation doses as low as possible without
compromising the intended purpose of the activity. ALARA guides professionals in
maintaining radiation exposure levels well below regulatory limits, prioritizing safety in
various industries, including healthcare and nuclear facilities.

When discussing radiation exposures, it is important to emphasise the dangers of radiation

exposure. Excessive radiation exposure can damage living tissues and increase the risk of
cancer. It may also lead to radiation sickness, with symptoms like nausea and fatigue.
Longterm exposure can have adverse effects on the immune system and reproductive
organs. It’s crucial to limit exposure through safety measures and follow recommended
guidelines in situations involving radiation.

In comparison to the study by HELEEN HANEKOM, our study was in agreement with her
study, which also shows higher state of awareness on cancer risks related to radiation
exposures.

Lead aprons are used in medical settings to provide protection from ionizing radiation during
procedures like X-rays. The lead in the apron acts as a barrier, absorbing and blocking the
radiation, reducing the dose that reaches the body. The effectiveness depends on factors like
thickness and quality of the lead. The percentage of radiation attenuation depends on the
energy and type of radiation, as well as the lead apron’s thickness. Generally, lead aprons
can attenuate radiation by 90% or more. It’s crucial to use them correctly and ensure they
cover the vital organs to maximize their protective benefits.

According to previous research, the majority of medical personnel wear lead aprons on a
regular basis, according to a recent study. This reveals that internship students do not even
know how to utilise a lead apron.

According to the statement, a recent survey discovered that the majority of medical staff
consistently wear lead aprons. It does, however, imply that internship students are unaware
of how to properly use a lead apron.

This suggests that among internship students, there may be a deficit in knowledge or
training about the proper usage of lead aprons. It shows that better education and
assistance are required to ensure that these students understand the need of wearing lead
aprons and how to utilise them properly to reduce radiation exposure.

Regulatory structures and standards are also essential components of the radiation safety
debate. To ensure the safe use of radiation, governments and regulatory agencies provide
guidelines, laws, and licencing criteria. Compliance with these standards is critical for
ensuring high levels of radiation safety and protecting both workers and the general public.
Radiation safety is a complex and multifaceted topic that requires ongoing attention and
discussion. It involves understanding the risks associated with radiation exposure,
implementing appropriate protective measures, adhering to regulatory standards, and
promoting education and communication about radiation safety. By fostering a culture of
safety and continuous improvement, we can ensure the safe and responsible use of
radiation in various fields.

We urge that radiologists and other specialty experts continue to collaborate in developing
local protocols. It is proposed that the consultants receive continuing medical education. The
requisition form should include radiation doses and dangers, allowing the requesting
consultant to review the material and discuss the concerns with the patient. This may boost
the consultant’s general awareness, knowledge, and behaviours. It is also proposed that the
formal imaging report reflect the patient’s personal total accumulated dosage of radiation.

Our study emphasises the importance of increased radiation safety education and training
for medical workers outside of the radiology field. It is possible to improve their
understanding and awareness of radiation dangers and suitable safety practises by giving
extensive education and counselling.

Communication and education are critical components of radiation safety. Individuals who
may be exposed to radiation, such as patients, workers, and the general public, must be
given clear and intelligible information. Education should cover potential hazards, safety
precautions, the use of protective equipment, and the significance of adhering to safety
regulations.

Lastly, continuous research and technology improvements aiming at enhancing safety

practises should be included in the topic of radiation safety. This could include developing
more efficient shielding materials, better imaging procedures that lower radiation doses, and
investigating alternate radiation sources or imaging modalities.
 SUMMARY

The study was conducted to determine the awareness of radiation exposures, precautions
and safety among medical workers from different hospitals.

Overall, the survey aimed to gather information on the level of knowledge and awareness
about radiation safety among individuals in hospitals.

The Google Form questionnaire consisted of 20questions and was distributed to the
participants. Although the study utilised a questionnaire survey method to gather data from
120 respondents out of a total of 150 individuals who were randomly selected.

our study had a varied group of participants, including radiology workers, other department
workers, radiotechnologist, internship students and many more other individuals.

Based on the given information, it can be concluded that the majority of participants fall
within the age group of 20 to 50 years old.

Overall, the participants responses highlight the lack of awareness among participants about
the connection between ionizing radiation and cancer as well as the potential long-term
effects of radiation exposure. Additionally, while some specialty doctors are proficient in
operating fluoroscopy devices, there is a need for better use of protective equipment,
including gonad protectors, protective eyewear, and gloves. Finally, none of the participants
used radiation recording equipment (a dosimeter), indicating a need for improved
monitoring of radiation exposure.

In generally, there is a lack of awareness and proper safety measures among medical
professionals when it comes to using ionizing radiation. This could potentially put both
patients and healthcare workers at risk of developing cancer or other radiation-related
illnesses. It is important for medical professionals to receive proper training and education
on the safe use of radiation and to consistently use appropriate protective equipment. The
use of dosimeters could also help monitor and limit exposure to radiation.

In conclusion, the survey results indicate that healthcare professionals with a radiological
background have more knowledge on radiation safety than those without a radiology
background.
 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, public awareness and education are crucial for promoting a culture of safety
and understanding potential risks associated with radiation exposure.

This study highlights that Radiation exposures should be managed carefully to minimize
risks. Adhering to safety guidelines, using protective measures, and understanding the
principles of ALARA (As Low as Reasonably Achievable) are crucial for maintaining a balance
between the benefits and potential risks associated with radiation exposure. Regular
monitoring, proper training, and public awareness contribute to a safer environment in
various fields, including medical, industrial, and environmental settings.

Public education plays a key role in dispelling misconceptions about radiation, fostering
informed decision-making, and promoting a nuanced understanding of its risks and benefits.
Overall, a holistic approach to radiation safety involves collaboration between professionals,
regulatory bodies, and the public.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1: National Research Council. (2006). Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
Radiation: BEIR VII Phase, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

2: International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). (2007). The 2007

Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP
Publication 103.

3: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).

(2008). Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations.

4: Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) and American College of Radiology (ACR).
(2019). ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available
online.

5: World Health Organization (WHO). (2018). Ionizing Radiation, Health Effects and
Protective Measures. World Health Organization.

6: Mettler, F. A., & Upton, A. C. (Eds.). (2008). Medical Effects of Ionizing Radiation (3rd ed.).
Saunders.

7: Bushberg, J. T., et al. (Eds.). (2011). The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging (3 rd ed.).
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

8: Hendee, W. R., & O’Connor, M. K. (Eds.). (2014). Radiation Risks in Perspective. Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins.

9: Shrimpton, P. C., et al. (Eds.). (2014). Diagnostic Radiology Physics: A Handbook for
Teachers and Students. International Atomic Energy Agency

10: IAEA Safety Standards Series. (2014). Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation
Sources: International Basic Safety Standards. International Atomic Energy Agency.

11: Martin, C. J. (Ed.). (2012). Introduction to Radiological Physics and Radiation Dosimetry.
Wiley.

12: Hall, E. J., & Giaccia, A. J. (Eds.). (2018). Radiobiology for the Radiologist (8th ed.).
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
13: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2017). Radiation Protection in the Medical
Uses of Ionizing Radiation.

14: Marcus, C. S., & Marcus, M. B. (2017). Introduction to Health Physics (5th ed.).
McGrawHill Education. IAEA Safety Standards Series.

15: Wrixon, A. D. (2008). New ICRP recommendations. Journal of Radiological Protection,

28(2), 161-168.

16: Fahey, F. H., et al. (Eds.). (2019). Bertrand, Volume I & II: Radiation Protection in Medical
Imaging and Radiation Oncology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

17: ICRP Publication 138. (2018). Ethical Foundations of the System of Radiological
Protection. International Commission on Radiological Protection.

18: Preston, D. L., et al. (2007). Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–
1998. Radiation Research, 168(1), 1-64.

19: UNSCEAR 2016 Report. (2017). Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. United
Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.

20: Rehani, M. M., & Srimahachota, S. (Eds.). (2019). Radiation Protection in Medical
Imaging and Radiation Oncology. CRC Press.

21: Valentin, J. (Ed.). (2007). The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission
on Radiological Protection: Questions and Answers. Annals of the ICRP, 37(2-4).

22: ICRP Publication 116. (2010). Conversion Coefficients for Radiological Protection
Quantities for External Radiation Exposures. International Commission on Radiological
Protection.

23: Hendry, J. H., et al. (2010). Human exposure to high natural background radiation: what
can it teach us about radiation risks? Journal of Radiological Protection, 30(1), 1-3.

24: NCRP Report No. 160. (2009). Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the
United States. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.

25: IAEA Safety Standards Series. (2018). Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation
Sources: Specific Safety Guide. International Atomic Energy Agency.

26: Preston, D. L., et al. (2003). Radiation effects on cancer risks in the Life Span Study
cohort. Radiation Research, 160(6), 707-717.
27: IAEA Safety Standards Series. (2013). Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation
Sources: International Basic Safety Standards. General Safety Requirements Part 3

28: Internati Rehani, M. M., et al. (Eds.). (2016). Radiation Protection in Medical Imaging
and
Radiation Oncology. Springe Ronal Atomic Energy Agency

29: Radiation Emergency Medical Management (REMM). (2022). National Library of

Medicine. Available online: https://www.remm.nlm.gov.

30: ICRP Publication 134. (2016). Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided

Procedures Outside the Imaging Department. International Commission on Radiological
Protection.