Radiation protection of medical staff in the latest draft of the revised Euratom Basic Safety Standards directive

2011 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 1197-1199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgi Simeonov ◽  
Stefan Mundigl ◽  
Augustin Janssens
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Medical Staff ◽  
Safety Standards

Derivation of Clearance Levels for the New German Radiation Protection Ordinance

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Thierfeldt ◽  
Ernst Kugeler ◽  
Alexander Nüsser ◽  
Renate Sefzig ◽  
Hans-Henning Landfermann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Waste Management ◽  
Boundary Conditions ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Individual Dose ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Full Agreement ◽  
Safety Standards ◽  
Country Specific

Abstract The new Radiation Protection Ordinance (RPO) in Germany which transforms the EURATOM Basic Safety Standards into national legislation contains detailed regulations on clearance. For each of the following clearance options, a separate set of clearance levels (CL) exists: unconditional clearance, clearance of building rubble (> 1000 Mg/a), clearance of buildings for demolition and for reuse, clearance of nuclear sites, and clearance for disposal or incineration. This paper outlines the basis for the derivation of these sets of CL which are all based on generic radiological scenarios taking into account all relevant aspects of the materials. The underlying dose criterion is 10 μSv/a individual dose and 1 man·Sv/a collective dose. When deriving sets of CL in Germany care has been taken to be compatible with recommendations of the European Union and the IAEA. It is a common experience that sets of CL which are intended for the same purpose (e.g. general, unconditional clearance) may vary between studies and therefore between countries. This follows directly from differences e.g. in material quantities, boundary conditions, waste management options etc. which may be country specific. German CL are, however, in full agreement with all recommendations issued by the European Commission.

scholarly journals Attitudes to radiation safety and cholangiogram interpretation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a UK survey

2020 ◽  
pp. flgastro-2020-101521
Author(s):  
Keith Siau ◽  
George Webster ◽  
Mark Wright ◽  
Ben Maher ◽  
Brian Stedman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Formal Training ◽  
Further Training ◽  
Endoscopic Retrograde ◽  
Safety Attitudes ◽  
Safety Standards ◽  
Hands On

BackgroundFluoroscopy during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) exposes staff and patients to potentially harmful ionizing radiation. We performed a UK survey to explore trainee and trainer attitudes to radiation protection and cholangiogram interpretation in ERCP.MethodsAn electronic 10-point survey was prospectively distributed to endoscopy unit leads, training programme directors between October and November 2019. Only UK-based ERCP trainees and trainers with hands-on procedural exposure were eligible for the survey.ResultsThe survey was completed by 107 respondents (58 trainees and 49 trainers), with an estimated overall response rate of 46%. Overall, 49% of respondents were up to date with their radiation protection course, 38% were aware of European Basic safety standards directive (BSSD), 38% wore radiation protection goggles, and 40% were aware of the average radiation screening dose per ERCP procedure. Compared with trainers, trainees were less likely to routinely wear thyroid protection shields (76% vs 92%; p=0.028), have awareness of the BSSD (20% vs 49%; p=0.037) or know their average procedural radiation dosages (21% vs 63%; p<0.001). With regard to cholangiogram interpretation, only 26% had received formal training, with 97% of trainees expressing a desire for further training.ConclusionThis survey highlights a relative complacency in safety attitudes to radiation protection during ERCP. These data provide impetus to improve training and quality assurance in radiation protection, which should be regarded as a mandatory safety aspect prior to commencing hands-on ERCP training.

scholarly journals Performance indicators for radiation protection management: suggestions from the European Society of Radiology

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Clinical Audit ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Audit Tool ◽  
Safety Standards ◽  
Inclusive Approach ◽  
European Society Of Radiology ◽  
Evaluation Of Data ◽  
Selection Of

AbstractIn 2013, the new European Basic Safety Standards Directive 2013/59/Euratom (BSS Directive), which defines the new legal framework for the use of ionising radiation in medical imaging and radiotherapy, was published. In 2014, the ESR EuroSafe Imaging Initiative was founded with a goal in mind “to support and strengthen medical radiation protection across Europe following a holistic, inclusive approach”. To support radiology departments in developing a programme of clinical audit, the ESR developed a Guide to Clinical Audit and an accompanying audit tool in 2017, with an expanded second edition released in 2019 and published under the name of Esperanto – ESR Guide to Clinical Audit in Radiology and the ESR Clinical Audit Tool, 2019. Audits represent specific aspects at a certain point in time, usually with retrospective evaluation of data. Key performance indicators (KPIs), on the other hand, are intended to enable continuous monitoring of relevant parameters, for example to provide warnings or a dashboard. KPIs, which can, for example, be recorded automatically and visualised in dashboards, are suitable for this purpose. This paper will discuss a selection of indicators covering different areas and include suggestions for their implementation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document