Objectives: To take stock of staff, premises and personal protective equipment in radiology departments in the Kindia region. Methodology: Cross-sectional, descriptive study conducted in March 2023, including all radiology departments and cabinets in the Kindia region. We reported on the characteristics of working conditions for the staff directly involved in radiation work (age, sex, qualifications, radiation protection training, duration of working under radiation, number of examinations per year), radiology rooms and equipment (room surface area, door manufacturing materials, building construction materials, illuminated signage at hall entrances, leaded shield), the use of personal radiation protection equipment (leaded apron, cap, thyroid protector, leaded goggles and gloves), the availability of dosimetric monitoring resources and the type of radiology equipment available. Results: 8 radiology departments and practices were surveyed, including 5 public (62.5%) and 3 private (35.5%). 21 medical and paramedical staff working directly under ionizing radiation, including 16 manipulators (76%), 2 physicians acting as radiologists (9.5%), one senior radiology technician (4.8%) and no radiology physicians. The average age of the staff was 32 (28-45), of whom 86% were male. The average number of years working with radiation was 4 years (2-7 years). 57% of staff had received radiation protection training, including 42.9% on the Internet, 9.5% post-graduate training and 4.8% initial training. 50% of the halls had a surface area of 30m 2 , 25% had a surface area of 24 m 2 and 25% had a surface area of 18m 2 . 62.25% of the doors were made of wood with lead and 62.5% of the walls were solid brick with concrete lining. There were no illuminated signs at the entrance to the halls. All departments had lead aprons, only one had a thyroid protector, and none had a dosimeter. The lead apron was the most commonly used personal protective equipment (86%), followed by leaded gloves (29%) and thyroid protectors (4.8%). 37.5% of departments had a bone-lung x-ray table only, 37.5% a bone-lung x-ray table and a mobile radio, and 25% a mobile radio only. Conclusion: The practice of radiation protection in health facilities in the Kindia region suffers from a number of shortcomings, including non-compliance with construction standards, the virtual absence of qualified radiology staff and a very low level of training in radiation protection. The use of personal protective equipment against X-rays is very limited, consisting mainly of leaded aprons.