In recent publications, such as Publications 117 and 120, the Commission provided practical advice for physicians and other healthcare personnel on measures to protect their patients and themselves during interventional procedures. These measures can only be effective if they are encompassed by a framework of radiological protection elements, and by the availability of professionals with responsibilities in radiological protection. This framework includes a radiological protection programme with a strategy for exposure monitoring, protective garments, education and training, and quality assurance of the programme implementation. Professionals with responsibilities in occupational radiological protection for interventional procedures include: medical physicists; radiological protection specialists; personnel working in dosimetry services; clinical applications support personnel from the suppliers and maintenance companies; staff engaged in training, standardisation of equipment, and procedures; staff responsible for occupational health; hospital administrators responsible for providing financial support; and professional bodies and regulators. This publication addresses these elements and these audiences, and provides advice on specific issues, such as assessment of effective dose from dosimeter readings when an apron is worn, estimation of exposure of the lens of the eye (with and without protective eyewear), extremity monitoring, selection and testing of protective garments, and auditing the interventional procedures when occupational doses are unusually high or low (the latter meaning that the dosimeter may not have been worn).

This article summarizes the dosimetric results of an International Atomic Energy Agency coordinated research program to investigate the feasibility of adopting guidance levels for invasive coronary artery procedures. The main study collected clinical data from hospitals located in five countries. A total of 2265 coronary angiograms (CA) and 1844 percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) were analyzed. Substudies evaluated the dosimetric performance of 14 fluoroscopes, skin dose maps obtained using film, the quality of CA procedures, and the complexity of PCI procedures. Kerma-area product (PKA) guidance levels of 50 and 125 Gy cm2 are suggested for CA and PCI procedures. These levels should be adjusted for the complexity of the procedures performed in a given institution.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 103 provided a detailed explanation of the purpose and use of effective dose and equivalent dose to individual organs and tissues. Effective dose has proven to be a valuable and robust quantity for use in the implementation of protection principles. However, questions have arisen regarding practical applications, and a Task Group has been set up to consider issues of concern. This paper focusses on two key proposals developed by the Task Group that are under consideration by ICRP: (1) confusion will be avoided if equivalent dose is no longer used as a protection quantity, but regarded as an intermediate step in the calculation of effective dose. It would be more appropriate for limits for the avoidance of deterministic effects to the hands and feet, lens of the eye, and skin, to be set in terms of the quantity, absorbed dose (Gy) rather than equivalent dose (Sv). (2) Effective dose is in widespread use in medical practice as a measure of risk, thereby going beyond its intended purpose. While doses incurred at low levels of exposure may be measured or assessed with reasonable reliability, health effects have not been demonstrated reliably at such levels but are inferred. However, bearing in mind the uncertainties associated with risk projection to low doses or low dose rates, it may be considered reasonable to use effective dose as a rough indicator of possible risk, with the additional consideration of variation in risk with age, sex and population group.

Knowledge and lessons from past accidental exposures in radiotherapy are very helpful in finding safety provisions to prevent recurrence. Disseminating lessons is necessary but not sufficient. There may be additional latent risks for other accidental exposures, which have not been reported or have not occurred, but are possible and may occur in the future if not identified, analyzed, and prevented by safety provisions. Proactive methods are available for anticipating and quantifying risk from potential event sequences. In this work, proactive methods, successfully used in industry, have been adapted and used in radiotherapy. Risk matrix is a tool that can be used in individual hospitals to classify event sequences in levels of risk. As with any anticipative method, the risk matrix involves a systematic search for potential risks; that is, any situation that can cause an accidental exposure. The method contributes new insights: The application of the risk matrix approach has identified that another group of less catastrophic but still severe single-patient events may have a higher probability, resulting in higher risk. The use of the risk matrix approach for safety assessment in individual hospitals would provide an opportunity for self-evaluation and managing the safety measures that are most suitable to the hospital's own conditions.

This paper does not necessarily reflect the views of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The protection quantity 'effective dose' was developed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) for use in the radiological protection of workers and the public. In this context, it is used as a risk-adjusted dosimetric quantity to optimise protection, comparing received or planned doses with constraints, reference levels, and limits expressed in the same quantity. Considering exposures incurred during medical procedures, effective dose can be of practical value for comparing: doses from different diagnostic examinations and interventional procedures; the use of similar technologies and procedures in different hospitals and countries; and the use of different technologies for the same medical examination, provided that the representative patients or patient populations for which the effective doses are derived are similar with regard to age and sex. However, as stated in ICRP Publication 103, '… risk assessment for medical diagnosis and treatment… is best evaluated using appropriate risk values for the individual tissues at risk and for the age and sex distribution of the individuals undergoing the medical procedures'. This topic was explored in a session of the First ICRP Symposium with arguments for and against the use of a new quantity referred to as 'effective risk', and examination of variations in estimated risk for different diagnostic procedures according to the age and sex of the exposed individuals. This paper restates the primary purposes of effective dose, and summarises estimates of variation in individual risk from medical procedures. The authors support the judicious use of effective dose as an indicator of possible risk, but caution against the use of effective risk as compared with the calculation of scientific best estimates of risk with consideration of associated uncertainties.