Koutalonis M, Horrocks J
Clinical Physics Department, Barts and the London NHS Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK.
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2012 Apr;149(2):124-37. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncr211. Epub 2011 May 16.
This study represents a survey performed among staff who, according to the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposures) Regulations of 2000 (IRMER), are responsible for justifying radiological examinations in the UK. The aim of the survey is to map the current situation regarding knowledge of risks from X-ray exposures and the criteria used for their justification. An anonymous electronic questionnaire was emailed to 219 radiologists and radiographers of five National Health Service hospitals. The questions were designed to investigate the way the sample group defines/assesses risk and benefit when justifying medical exposures, and to test their knowledge on radiation doses, risk communication, and on relevant national legislation. The majority of the respondents are aware of the relevant legislation/guidelines. Patient's medical condition, age and sex, and alternative techniques using less or no ionising radiation are the main criteria used for justification. However, when estimating the effective dose of various examinations in chest radiograph equivalents, the majority of the responses were incorrect. Although there is good knowledge of legislation around justification of medical exposures, there seems to be a lack of knowledge on radiation doses and risks among IRMER practitioners.
本研究是对英国一些工作人员进行的一项调查，这些人员根据2000年《电离辐射（医疗照射）法规》（IRMER），负责证明放射检查的合理性。该调查的目的是梳理有关X射线照射风险的知识现状以及用于证明其合理性的标准。一份匿名电子问卷被发送给了五家国民保健服务医院的219名放射科医生和放射技师。这些问题旨在调查样本组在证明医疗照射合理性时界定/评估风险和益处的方式，并测试他们在辐射剂量、风险沟通以及相关国家立法方面的知识。大多数受访者了解相关立法/指南。患者的病情、年龄和性别，以及使用较少或不使用电离辐射的替代技术是用于证明合理性的主要标准。然而，在以胸部X光片等效剂量估算各种检查的有效剂量时，大多数回答是错误的。尽管对医疗照射合理性方面的立法有较好的了解，但IRMER从业者似乎缺乏辐射剂量和风险方面的知识。
