Dataset Information

Awareness about radiation hazards and knowledge about radiation protection among healthcare personnel: A quaternary care academic center-based study.

ABSTRACT: Background:The use of medical radiation in diagnosis and procedural and surgical treatment is increasing. Therefore, healthcare personnel should be adequately aware and knowledgeable about radiation hazards to protect themselves and their patients from its adverse effects. The objective of this study was to examine awareness about radiation hazards and knowledge about protection methods among the anesthesia personnel and surgical subspecialists of a quaternary care academic center. Methods:A validated questionnaire was completed by anesthetic personnel and surgical subspecialists. It consisted of questions that required demographic information and assessed awareness about radiation hazards. In addition, 15 multiple-choice questions assessed knowledge about radiation across the following domains: the main principle of radiation protection, personal annual radiation dose, personal protection equipment, safe distance from an X-ray machine, and susceptible organs. Results:A total of 270 potential participants were emailed and invited to respond to an online questionnaire, and the response rate was 79.3%. Of the 214 participants, 69.2% were women; the mean age of the sample was 34.8?years. Most of the participants (63.1%) considered radiation exposure that occurs as a part of daily work to be very harmful; 86.4% and 78.5% reported that they always wore a lead apron and a thyroid shield when working in an environment that entails radiation exposure, respectively. The mean score for knowledge about radiation hazards and protection was 6.4?±?2.0 (maximum possible score?=?15) Therefore, there is a need to improve anesthetic personnel and surgical subspecialists' knowledge about radiation protection, especially with regard to the use of lead goggles and harmful doses of radiation. Conclusion:The present findings suggest that there is a reasonable level of awareness but a relative lack of knowledge about radiation hazards and protection among anesthesia personnel and surgical subspecialists. Therefore, continuing medical education on radiation hazards and protection must be mandated.

SUBMITTER: Khamtuikrua C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6977219 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Awareness about radiation hazards and knowledge about radiation protection among healthcare personnel: A quaternary care academic center-based study.

Khamtuikrua Chaowanan C Suksompong Sirilak S

SAGE open medicine 20200122

<h4>Background</h4>The use of medical radiation in diagnosis and procedural and surgical treatment is increasing. Therefore, healthcare personnel should be adequately aware and knowledgeable about radiation hazards to protect themselves and their patients from its adverse effects. The objective of this study was to examine awareness about radiation hazards and knowledge about protection methods among the anesthesia personnel and surgical subspecialists of a quaternary care academic center.<h4>Me ...[more]

PMID: 32030128

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction Access to ionizing radiation has become widely available for diagnosis and treatment. The increased use of ionizing radiation has been associated with radiation exposure hazards for patients and radiation workers. Raising the level of radiation protection awareness is important to maintain the safety of healthcare settings. Methods Online questionnaires were distributed to 755 healthcare workers and students at King Abdulaziz Medical City and King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire consisted of 14 multiple-choice questions divided into two sections (questions related to radiation protection and common radiologic examination doses). Results In total, 443 participants completed the questionnaire, including 142 (32%) medical students, 107 (24%) radiology technologists, 105 (24%) radiography students, and 89 (20%) physicians. Of the participants, 245 (55%) were men. A total of 74 (84%) physicians and 51 (47%) radiology technologists had more than 5 years of experience. Eleven (12%) physicians and 44 (41%) radiology technologists had 1–4 years of experience, whereas the rest had less than 1 year of experience. Only 16% of participants attended training courses on a regular basis. However, 15% of the participants thought that they had excellent knowledge of radiation protection, whereas 18% admitted that they did not have sufficient knowledge. Sixty-two percent of the questions related to radiation protection awareness were answered correctly. Forty-five percent of the participants correctly answered questions related to doses from common radiologic examinations. Only 23% and 16% of participants were aware of the noncontrast chest CT and lumbar x-ray doses, respectively. Moreover, 35% and 24% of participants did not know that pelvic MRI and abdominal ultrasound do not contribute any radiation dose, respectively. Conclusion The results showed a knowledge gap regarding radiation protection and dose levels; therefore, periodic refresher courses are recommended for healthcare workers in order to increase the level of awareness.

Project description:BackgroundComplementary medicine (CM) is utilized in a growing number of academic centers despite the debate concerning its value, risks and benefits. Healthcare professionals often feel uncomfortable discussing CM with patients, and little is known about their sources of knowledge in the field of CM.ObjectiveTo assess healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge and attitude toward CM in an academic hospital.Design and participantsThe cross-sectional web-based survey took place from October to December 2013. A total of 4,925 healthcare professionals working at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, were invited to answer the questionnaire.Main measuresFactors influencing healthcare professionals' opinion toward CM, knowledge and communication about CM.Key resultsThe questionnaire was answered by 1,247 healthcare professionals. The three key factors influencing professionals' opinion toward CM were personal experience, clinical experience and evidence demonstrating the physiological mechanism of CM. Personal experience was more associated with nurses' and midwives' opinion compared to physicians' (80.8% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.08, [95% CI: 2.35-4.05], P<0.001 and 85.3% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.83, [95% CI: 1.95-7.53], P<0.001, respectively) as well as with professionals trained in CM compared to non-trained professionals (86.0% vs 73.2%, OR = 2.60, [95% CI: 1.92-3.53], P<0.001). Physicians relied more on randomized controlled clinical trials compared to nurses (81.3% vs 62.9%, OR = 0.43, [95% CI: 0.33-0.57], P<0.001). A majority of the respondents (82.5%) agreed that they lacked knowledge about CM and 65.0% noted that it was the patient who initially started the discussion about CM.ConclusionsDifferent professionals used different strategies to forge opinions regarding CM: physicians relied more on scientific evidence, while nurses and midwives were more influenced by personal experience. Regardless of preferred information source, most respondents did not feel prepared to address patient questions regarding CM. Enhancing interprofessional education opportunities is an important strategy to help providers become empowered to discuss CM with patients. This in turn will help patients making informed decisions in their healthcare.

Project description:ImportanceThe consultation patterns of an otolaryngology-head and neck surgery service have not previously been reported. The time, resources, and attention required to operate such a consultation service are unknown.ObjectiveTo assess trends in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery consultations conducted in emergency departments (EDs) and inpatient services.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective analysis was conducted of the medical records of patients at a quaternary care center receiving inpatient otolaryngology consultations from January 1 to December 31, 2014.ExposureClinical evaluation and bedside and operative procedures performed by the otolaryngology-head and neck surgery service.Main outcomes and measuresDemographics, reason for consultation, diagnosis, bedside procedures, operative interventions, and admission variables.ResultsA total of 1491 consultations were completed for adult (1091 [73.2%]; 854 men and 637 women; mean [SD] age 50.3 [19.3] years) and pediatric (400 [26.8%]; 232 boys and 168 girls; mean [SD] age, 4.0 [5.2] years) patients. Of the 1491 consultations, 766 (51.4%) originated from inpatient teams vs 725 (48.6%) from the ED. A total of 995 of all consultations (66.7%) resulted in a bedside procedure, and 243 (16.3%) required operative intervention. Consultations regarding airway evaluation (362 [47.3%] vs 143 [19.7%]), management of epistaxis (78 [10.2%] vs 33 [4.6%]), and rhinologic evaluation (79 [10.3%] vs 18 [2.5%]) were more frequent from inpatient teams than from the ED. Consultations regarding management of head and neck infections (162 [22.3%] vs 32 [4.2%]), facial trauma (235 [32.4%] vs 16 [2.1%]), and postoperative complications (73 [10.1%] vs 2 [0.3%]) were more frequent in the ED. Of the 725 consultations performed in the ED, 212 patients (29.2%) required hospitalization.Conclusions and relevanceThe consultation volume of an otolaryngology-head and neck surgery service requires significant time and resources. Consultations are most often for rhinologic or laryngologic issues and are reflective of the clinical setting in which the patient is evaluated. Cost savings may be realized by increasing health care access points for nonurgent concerns that can be evaluated in an outpatient setting.

Project description:Academic Medical Centers ("AMCs") have served as a hub of the United States ("US") health system and represented the state-of-the art in American health care for well over a century. Currently, the global healthcare market is both massive and expanding and is being altered by the unprecedented impact of technological advances and globalization. This provides AMCs a platform to enter into trans-national collaborative partnerships with healthcare organizations around the world, thus providing a means to deliver on its promise globally while also expanding and diversifying its resources. A number of leading US AMCs have engaged in global collaborative healthcare, employing different models based on services offered, global distribution, and inclination to assume risk. Engaging in these collaborations requires significant effort from across the health system, and an understanding of the resources required is paramount for effective delivery and to avoid overextension and diversion from the primary mission of these organizations. The goal of this paper is to discuss the role of US AMCs in this current global healthcare landscape and to also investigate our institutional faculty and staff resource requirements to support the operating model.We extracted and retrospectively analyzed data from the JHI Global Services database for a 3-year period (Jan, 2013-Dec, 2015) to determine total utilization (hours and full time equivalent (FTE)), utilization by profession, and clinical and non-clinical areas of expertise.JHI utilized on average 21,940 h annually, or 10.55 FTEs of faculty and staff subject matter experts. The majority of the hours are for work performed by physician faculty members from 23 departments within the School of Medicine, representing 77% percent or on average 16,894 h annually. Clinical and allied health departments had an average annual utilization of 17,642 h or 7.8 FTEs, while non-clinical departments, schools and institutes averaged 4298 h or 1.9 FTEs, representing 80.4% and 19.6% respectively.We found that significant human resources are required within a broad range of AMC subject matter expertise across multiple disciplines, and that with adequate forecasting AMCs can successfully engage in these collaborations while continuing to fulfill their core mission.

Dataset Information

Awareness about radiation hazards and knowledge about radiation protection among healthcare personnel: A quaternary care academic center-based study.

Publications

Awareness about radiation hazards and knowledge about radiation protection among healthcare personnel: A quaternary care academic center-based study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets