![]() The average reported dose remained significantly lower than the occupational dose limits for radiation workers of 20 mSv.ĭaily active COVID-19 cases in Victoria in 2020 reproduced using freely accessible, open-access data via a GitHub repository. Increased utilisation and work practice changes had no significant effect on reported staff radiation dose. ![]() In Q1, doses marginally decreased and were not statistically significant ( P = 0.22). Reported doses marginally increased during Q2, Q3 and Q4 of 2020 (in comparison to 2019 data), though was not statistically significant (Q2: P = 0.13 Q3: P = 0.31 and Q4 P = 0.32). The mobile imaging rate per month of non-routine body regions increased from approximately 6.0–7.8%. Mobile X-ray use during the pandemic increased approximately 1.7-fold, with the peak usage observed in September 2020. Categorical data were compared using a Chi-squared test. Statistical analysis was conducted using a Mann–Whitney U test when comparing each quarter, from 2019 to 2020. Personal radiation monitor exposure reports between January 2019 and December 2020 were analysed. MethodsĪ retrospective analysis of general radiology departments across two metropolitan hospitals was performed. This study aims to assess the effect of increased utilisation of mobile X-ray units, mobile imaging of non-routine body regions and radiographer work practice changes for impact on staff radiation dose during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Guidelines associated with the use of portable X-ray will also be examined.Ĭopyright © 2016 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.The use of ionising radiation results in occupational exposure to medical imaging professionals, requiring routine monitoring. This Rapid Response report aims to review the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of portable X-ray compared to fixed X-ray. Using culture-confirmed cases as comparator, mobile X-ray had a sensitivity of 81.8% (95% confidence interval 64.5 to 93.0) and a specificity of 99.2% (95% CI 99.1 to 99.3) for the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis.ĭespite the advantages of portable X-ray, the image quality of bedside chest radiograph can be limited, and the image interpretation and appropriate clinical action can be affected due to a decrease in communication between the attending physician and the radiologist. ![]() Mobile digital chest X-ray was found to be sensitive and specific in detecting pulmonary tuberculosis for homeless populations, drug users and prisoners. ![]() One out of 123 patients (241 radiography examinations) had to have repeat radiography at the hospital because of underexposed images while image quality for the rest was adequate for diagnosis. Mobile radiography services for radiological assessment of patients in nursing homes have shown to be technically feasible, with good image quality, and beneficial factors such as the security and comfort of patients, no need for transportation, and no need for staff to be absent from the nursing home to accompany the patients. The diagnostic efficacy of portable chest X-ray - or bedside chest X-ray - (defined as the number of chest X-rays showing new findings or changes to known findings divided by the total number of chest X-rays) for patients admitted to the intensive care unit has been reported to be 84.5%. Portable X-ray has been an useful tool for the diagnosis and monitoring of patients in the intensive care units, in nursing homes, in prisons, or in shelters for the homeless, where transfer to the hospital radiology department may be an obstacle.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |