Assessment of radiological protection systems among diagnostic radiology facilities in North East India

Abstract

This study aims to assess the adequacy level of radiological protection systems available in the diagnostic radiology facilities located in three capital cities of North East (NE) India. It further attempts to understand, using a multi-disciplinary approach, how the safety codes/standards in diagnostic radiology framed by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to achieve adequate radiological protection in facilities, have been perceived, conceptualized, and applied accordingly in these facilities. About 30 diagnostic radiology facilities were randomly selected from three capitals of states in NE India; namely Imphal (Manipur), Shillong (Meghalaya) and Guwahati (Assam). A semi-structured questionnaire developed based on a multi-disciplinary approach was used for this study. It was observed that radiological practices undertaken in these facilities were not exactly in line with safety codes/standards in diagnostic radiology of the AERB and the IAEA. About 50% of the facilities had registered/licensed x-ray equipment with the AERB. More than 80% of the workers did not use radiation protective devices, although these devices were available in the facilities. About 85% of facilities had no institutional risk management system. About 70% of the facilities did not carry out periodic quality assurance testing of their x-ray equipment or surveys of radiation leakage around the x-ray room, and did not display radiation safety indicators in the x-ray rooms. Workers in these facilities exhibited low risk perception about the risks associated with these practices. The majority of diagnostic radiology facilities in NE India did not comply with the radiological safety codes/standards framed by the AERB and IAEA. The study found inadequate levels of radiological protection systems in the majority of facilities. This study suggests a need to establish firm measures that comply with the radiological safety codes/standards of the AERB and IAEA to protect patients, workers and the public of this region.

How safe is radiotherapy practice in India: perceptions and practical experiences among the workers of radiotherapy facilities in North East, India?

“…These terms are explained in the literature elsewhere. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]42 An in-depth interview questionnaire was developed based on the above literature. The contents of the questionnaire are provided in Table 1.…”

“…Many researchers mainly from the social sciences, found that SF like risk perception, attitude, working behaviour, work coordination, communication, hierarchy and work pressure played a vital role in shaping the same physical risk, and played a significant role in the decisionmaking processes for implementation of regulatory requirements. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] It was found that the physical risk, defined by natural scientists underwent attenuation and amplification according to risk perception, communication and political interest. Barke et al 32 also found that even the scientist exhibited different risk perceptions on the same physical event.…”

Sisprad: Software for Radiological Protection Management in a Hospital Environment

“…In this sense, a number of studies signal the importance of a project that aims to improve the infrastructure of the facilities, the training of employees, and the communication between the radiodiagnosis sector and the other sectors. [23][24] Valuing work begins with actions that prioritize occupational safety, preventing harms and promoting worker health. 25 In Brazil, there is evidence of weaknesses regarding RP.…”

Understanding radiological protection systems among diagnostic radiology facilities in Mumbai, India

“…Under such conditions, the practice could eliminates tissue reactions. However, the current practice faces many challenges in areas like lack of patient safety, a long term scientific argument about the phenomenon of stochastic effects at a low dose, lack of adoption of standard operating procedures, deficiency in regulatory compliances, dearth of awareness on radiation safety aspects amongst workers, and higher cases of excessive exposure among the workers (AERB 2005-2005-2017, Sonawane et al 2010, CAG 2012, Famurewa et al 2013, Khong et al 2013, Lok Sabha 2014, 2015a, 2015b, Singh et al 2016.…”