No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Regulation and education of the professionals administering radiotherapy treatments in the linear accelerator varies across the EU. However, how different programme characteristics affect the level of competency of these professionals has never been studied before. This study also aimed to assess which are the least and most developed competencies in radiotherapy across the EU. Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed to academic staff teaching radiotherapy across the EU. Staff were asked to identify the characteristics of the course programmes and to classify the level of competency of graduates regarding linear accelerator tasks. Results: Fifty respondents from 19 EU countries answered the questionnaire. The least developed competency theme was pharmacology followed by equipment quality assurance and management and leadership. The most developed competency was positioning and immobilisation, followed by radiotherapy treatment delivery and professional and ethical practice. Some competencies are developed at the same level across EU countries, while others vary considerably between member-states. Longer programmes, with more placements, and larger proportions of radiotherapy in the programme showed significant increase in the development of some competencies. Longer placements in skills labs was correlated with a decrease in competency. Conclusion: There is no harmonisation of radiotherapy eduction across the EU and the differences in programme characteristics are reflected in differences in competency levels of radiotherapy radiographers. This may hinder movement of professionals and create disparities in the level of care offered across the EU.

ObjectivesThe objectives are to investigate radiology practitioners’ and radiographers’ radiation dose awareness and use of referral guidelines for paediatric imaging examinations.MethodsA prospective cross-sectional survey was conducted amongst radiology practitioners and radiographers working at a primary paediatric referral centre in Malta. Part of the survey asked participants to indicate the typical effective dose (ED) for several commonly performed paediatric imaging examinations, answer five true-false statements about radiation protection principles, and specify their use of referral guidelines for paediatric imaging.ResultsThe return of 112 questionnaires provided a response rate of 66.7 %. Overall, imaging practitioners demonstrated poor awareness of radiation doses associated with several paediatric imaging examinations, with only 20 % providing the correct ED estimate for radiation-based examinations. Nearly all participants had undertaken radiation protection training, but the type and duration of training undertaken varied. When asked about the use of referral guidelines for paediatric imaging, 77.3 % claimed that they ‘did not’ or ‘were not sure’ if they made use of them.ConclusionsPoor awareness of radiation doses associated with paediatric imaging examinations and the non-use of referral guidelines may impede imaging practitioners’ role in the justification and optimisation of paediatric imaging examinations. Education and training activities to address such shortcomings are recommended.Key Points• Imaging practitioners demonstrated poor radiation dose awareness for 5 paediatric imaging examinations.• Most radiology practitioners and radiographers were ‘not sure’ or ‘did not’ use referral guidelines.• Imaging practitioners generally considered previously undertaken paediatric imaging examinations.• Some imaging practitioners had not undertaken training in radiation protection for 10 years.• Training activities to address imaging practitioners’ poor radiation dose awareness are encouraged.