DOCSLIB.ORG

Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic and Interventional X-Ray Procedures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic and Interventional X-Ray Procedures United States Interagency Working Group EPA-402-R-10003 Environmental Protection on Medical Radiation November 2014 Agency Federal Guidance Report No. 14 EPA-402-R-10003 FEDERAL GUIDANCE REPORT NO. 14 Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic and Interventional X-Ray Procedures November 2014 Interagency Working Group on Medical Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 Dedication Doreen G. Hill, MPH, PhD, was a long-term member of the ISCORS Medical Workgroup. Sadly, she passed away before she could see her work on Federal Guidance Report No. 14 completed. She represented the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration on the workgroup in an admirable fashion. Doreen brought to the workgroup a high degree of professionalism, a great interest in x-ray safety, a strong work ethic, and a focus on ensuring that we remained sensitive to OSHA regulations and policies. She was our editor, a self-imposed and thankless task, and enforced a clear writing style. She transformed our jargon and incomprehensible run-on sentences into language that conveyed meaning in a straightforward way. Whenever she was unavailable during a web conference, someone else would attempt to fulfill her role, albeit with nowhere near her style and grace, saying they were "channeling Doreen." After her passing, we continued to use the phrase and its intent during our meetings. Doreen brought with her a sense of humor that permeated our meetings. She often said she never wanted to miss a workgroup meeting because they were the most fun, entertaining, and enlightening meetings she had ever attended. It was she who made it so. We miss you, Doreen, and hope that our channeling of your spirit has kept the document's quality high and its readability good. i FOREWORD The authority of the Federal Radiation Council to provide radiation protection guidance to federal agencies was transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on December 2, 1970, by Reorganization Plan No. 3. Under this authority, Federal Guidance Report No. 14 provides federal facilities that use diagnostic and interventional x-ray equipment with recommendations for keeping patient doses as low as reasonably achievable without compromising the quality of patient care. Federal Guidance Report No. 14 is an update to the 1976 x-ray guidance in Federal Guidance Report No. 9. This guidance takes into account that in recent years there has been a significant increase in the use of digital imaging technology and high dose procedures, such as computed tomography (CT). Also, there have been many reports of unnecessarily high doses being given to children undergoing CT exams. The guidance in this document was created by an Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards Work Group, which included medical and radiation protection professionals from the EPA, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense (Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The interagency collaborative effort highlights the importance of this guidance for federal healthcare facilities. Federal Guidance Report No. 14 is being issued to all federal facilities that perform diagnostic or interventional x-ray procedures. Private healthcare facilities are encouraged to consider adopting any or all of the guidance and its recommendations as they consider appropriate.While not binding on any agency or facility, incorporating the best practices defined in this guidance will improve the safety of diagnostic and interventional imaging. ii PREFACE Federal Guidance reports were initiated under the Federal Radiation Council (FRC), which was formed in 1959, through Executive Order 10831. A decade later its functions were transferred to the Administrator of the newly formed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (Nixon 1970). Under these authorities it is the responsibility of the Administrator to “advise the President with respect to radiation matters, directly or indirectly affecting health, including guidance for all federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and in the establishment and execution of programs of cooperation with States” (EPA 2012). This document is Federal Guidance Report No. 14 (FGR 14), “Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic and Interventional X-ray Procedures.” It replaces Federal Guidance Report No. 9 (FGR 9), “Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic X-rays,” which was released in October 1976. As with FGR 14, the development of FGR 9 was the result of a growing recognition at the time among medical practitioners, medical physicists, and other scientists that medical uses of ionizing radiation represented a significant and growing source of radiation exposure for the U.S. population. Almost 40 years after its release, it is clear that FGR 9 was a groundbreaking achievement. FGR 9 served as the template for the current document, and the authors of FGR 14 are deeply appreciative of the work of their predecessors. FGR 9 provided constructive guidance on the use of diagnostic film radiography, for which there was an incentive to deliver appropriate radiation doses and avoid retakes resulting from under- or over-exposing the film. This report, Federal Guidance Report No. 14, focuses on the transition to digital imaging. It extends the scope to include computed tomography (CT), interventional fluoroscopy, bone densitometry, and veterinary practice, and updates sections on radiography and dentistry that were covered in FGR 9. In addition, it addresses justification of the examination and optimization of radiation dose, and features an expanded section on occupational exposure. There is no question that medical imaging has provided great improvements in medical care through the use of x-rays for diagnosis. As with much of medical care, x-rays provide great benefit when used properly, but are not without risk. Human exposures to medical radiation were neither controlled by law nor covered by consensus guidance. In 1972, the Federal Radiation Council released a report concluding that “...medical diagnostic radiology accounts for at least 90% of the total man-made radiation dose to which the U.S. population is exposed.” In response, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (predecessor of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)) developed and issued FGR 9. The key recommendations in FGR 9 were subsequently approved by President Carter (Carter 1978) and published in the Federal Register on February 1, 1978. The basic approach for reducing exposure from diagnostic uses of x-rays in federal facilities involved three principal considerations: 1) eliminating clinically unproductive examinations, 2) assuring the use of optimal technique when examinations are performed, and 3) requiring appropriate equipment to be used (EPA 1976). iii FGR 9 was the first Federal Guidance Report to provide a framework for developing radiation protection programs for diagnostic uses of x-rays in medicine. It introduced into federal guidance the concepts of: Conducting medical x-ray studies only to obtain diagnostic information, Limiting routine or elective screening examinations to those with demonstrated benefit over risk, Considering possible fetal exposures during examinations of pregnant or potentially pregnant patients, Ensuring diagnostic equipment operators meet or exceed the standards of credentialing organizations, Specifying that standard x-ray examinations should satisfy maximum numerical exposure criteria, and Recommending that each imaging facility have a quality assurance program designed to produce radiographs that satisfy diagnostic requirements with minimal patient exposure. Much of FGR 9 has stood the test of time, but other parts have become obsolete. In particular, the advent of digital x-ray image acquisition has eliminated film blackening as a built-in deterrent to overexposing patients. Digital imaging methodologies have improved medical care by increasing the quality of diagnostic images and significantly decreasing the need for exploratory surgeries. However, in some cases, the use of this newer technology was accompanied by a significant increase in patient radiation dose (Compagnone et al. 2006; Seibert et al. 1996). Some newly introduced technologies, e.g., computed tomography (CT), yielded higher patient doses than the radiographic procedures they replaced. Finally, increased utilization of imaging studies resulted in a greater radiation dose to the population. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) performance standards for ionizing radiation emitting products address radiography, fluoroscopy, and CT equipment, and are codified in 21 CFR 1020 (FDA 2014g). The FDA revised these performance standards in 2005, in part to address some of the radiation dose issues discussed above. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) reports that medical radiation exposure to the average member of the U.S. population has increased rapidly and continues to do so. Their previous estimate, based on 1970’s and early 1980’s data, was that medical exposure accounted for 0.53 millisievert (mSv) or 53 millirem (mrem) per year, which was 15% of the total annual average (per capita) dose (NCRP 1989a). Based on 2006 data, this estimate was increased to 3 mSv (300 mrem) per year or 48% of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comprehensive Qa for Radiation Oncology
    AAPM REPORT NO. 46 COMPREHENSIVE QA FOR RADIATION ONCOLOGY Published for the American Association of Physicists in Medicine by the American Institute of Physics AAPM REPORT NO. 46 COMPREHENSIVE QA FOR RADIATION ONCOLOGY REPORT OF TASKGROUP NO.40 RADIATION THERAPY COMMITTEE AAPM Members Gerald J. Kutcher, TG Chair Lawrence Coia Michael Gillin William F. Hanson Steven Leibel Robert J. Morton Jatinder R. Palta James A. Purdy Lawrence E. Reinstein Goran K. Svensson Mona Weller Linda Wingfield Reprinted from MEDICAL PHYSICS, Volume 21, Issue 4, 1994 April 1994 Published by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine DISCLAIMER: This publication is based on sources and information believed to be reliable, but the AAPM and the editors disclaim any warranty or liability based on or relating to the contents of this publication. The AAPM does not endorse any products, manufacturers, or suppliers. Nothing in this publication should be interpreted as implying such endorsement. Further copies of this report may be obtained from: AAPM One Physics Ellipse College Park, MD 20740-3846 301/209-3350 International Standard Book Number: l-56396-401 -5 Copyright © 1994 by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40 Gerald J. Kutcher Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10021 Lawrence Coia Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center/University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111 Michael Gillin Radiation Therapy Department, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226 William F.
    [Show full text]
  • A Venture in Native American Shield Making
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2007 A Venture in Native American Shield Making Mary Margaret Hinojosa The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Hinojosa, Mary Margaret, "A Venture in Native American Shield Making" (2007). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 1230. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1230 This Professional Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A VENTURE IN NATIVE AMERICAN SHIELD MAKING By Mary Margaret Hinojosa B. S. in Elementary Education, Western Montana College, Dillon, MT, 1988 B. S. in Art, Western Montana College, Dillon, MT, 1988 Professional Paper presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Integrated Arts and Education The University of Montana Missoula, MT Summer 2007 Approved by: Dr. David A. Strobel, Dean Graduate School Dr. Randy Bolton- Chair Fine Arts Dr. James Kriley, Committee Member Fine Arts Dorothy Morrison Fine Arts Hinojosa, Mary, Master of Arts, Summer 2007 Integrated Arts and Education Change in Focus Chairperson: Dr. Randy Bolton Our school district has an exceptionally low rate of parental involvement in the educational process of our students. Establishing a “Parent Corner” in the lobby of our school would aid in the solution of this dilemma.
    [Show full text]
  • Popular Television Programs & Series
    Middletown (Documentaries continued) Television Programs Thrall Library Seasons & Series Cosmos Presents… Digital Nation 24 Earth: The Biography 30 Rock The Elegant Universe Alias Fahrenheit 9/11 All Creatures Great and Small Fast Food Nation All in the Family Popular Food, Inc. Ally McBeal Fractals - Hunting the Hidden The Andy Griffith Show Dimension Angel Frank Lloyd Wright Anne of Green Gables From Jesus to Christ Arrested Development and Galapagos Art:21 TV In Search of Myths and Heroes Astro Boy In the Shadow of the Moon The Avengers Documentary An Inconvenient Truth Ballykissangel The Incredible Journey of the Batman Butterflies Battlestar Galactica Programs Jazz Baywatch Jerusalem: Center of the World Becker Journey of Man Ben 10, Alien Force Journey to the Edge of the Universe The Beverly Hillbillies & Series The Last Waltz Beverly Hills 90210 Lewis and Clark Bewitched You can use this list to locate Life The Big Bang Theory and reserve videos owned Life Beyond Earth Big Love either by Thrall or other March of the Penguins Black Adder libraries in the Ramapo Mark Twain The Bob Newhart Show Catskill Library System. The Masks of God Boston Legal The National Parks: America's The Brady Bunch Please note: Not all films can Best Idea Breaking Bad be reserved. Nature's Most Amazing Events Brothers and Sisters New York Buffy the Vampire Slayer For help on locating or Oceans Burn Notice reserving videos, please Planet Earth CSI speak with one of our Religulous Caprica librarians at Reference. The Secret Castle Sicko Charmed Space Station Cheers Documentaries Step into Liquid Chuck Stephen Hawking's Universe The Closer Alexander Hamilton The Story of India Columbo Ansel Adams Story of Painting The Cosby Show Apollo 13 Super Size Me Cougar Town Art 21 Susan B.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FUTURE of INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY Introduction
    Volume 13 No 3 / Jun 2017 Quarterly publication of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists THE FUTURE OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY Introduction A Day in the Life of a Modern Interventional Radiology Unit Interventional radiology (IR) has been It’s 7:30am on Wednesday morning and many of them with treatment histories a dynamic field since its inception the HCC meeting is about to start. The stretching back years. We have come over 50 years ago through the work room is filled with gastroenterologists, a a long way from an average life of early pioneers in the field. In hepatic surgeon, oncologists, diagnostic expectancy of seven months. 1964, Charles Dotter described and and interventional radiologists, IR By 8:30am, it’s time to get going on the performed the first angioplasty and and HCC nursing staff and keen first case of the day. He is a 54-year- in the years that followed, he and radiographers. It’s a relatively new old hypertensive vasculopath with other innovators brought about a meeting borne out of the UGI meeting calcified vessels and critical stenoses revolution in procedural medicine with that was at risk of stretching to several of his renal arteries. He was seen in the development of catheter directed hours by the prospect of an ever- the interventional clinic several weeks therapies and other minimally invasive increasing tide of chronic liver disease before for a pre-procedural assessment image guided techniques. (viral and NASH) predisposing to HCC. where he was fully worked up and Today, modern IR and the healthcare The first patient is a 65-year-old female paperwork completed so there are no system in which it operates is with cirrhosis, Child-Pugh A and ECOG hold ups getting him on the table.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic X Rays
    Disclaimer - For assistance accessing this document or additional information, please contact [email protected]. EPA 520/4-76-019 FEDERAL GUIDANCE REPORT NO. 9 RADIATION PROTECTION GUIDANCE FOR DIAGNOSTIC X RAYS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON MEDICAL RADIATION FEDERAL GUIDANCE REPORT NO. 9 RADIATION PROTECTION GUIDANCE FOR DIAGNOSTIC X RAYS Interagency Working Group on Medical Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 October 1976 PREFACE The authority of the Federal Radiation Council to provide radiation protection guidance was transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency on December 2, 1970, by Reorganization Plan No. 3. Prior to this transfer, the Federal Radiation Council developed reports which provided the basis for guidance recommended to the President for use by Federal agencies in developing standards for a wide range of radiation exposure circumstances. This report, which was prepared in cooperation with an Interagency Working Group on Medical Radiation formed on July 5, 1974, constitutes a similar objective to provide the basis for recommendations to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure due to medical uses of diagnostic x rays. The Interagency Working Group developed its recommendations with the help of two subcommittees. The Subcommittee on Prescription of Exposure to X rays examined factors to eliminate clinically unproductive examinations and the Subcommittee on Technic of Exposure Prevention examined factors to assure the use of optimal technic in performing x-ray examinations. Both subcommittees also considered the importance of appropriate and properly functioning equipment in producing radiographs of the required diagnostic quality with minimal exposure. Reports by these subcommittees were made available for public comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Risk in Perspective
    PS010-1 RADIATION RISK IN PERSPECTIVE POSITION STATEMENT OF THE HEALTH HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY* PHYSICS SOCIETY Adopted: January 1996 Revised: August 2004 Contact: Richard J. Burk, Jr. Executive Secretary Health Physics Society Telephone: 703-790-1745 Fax: 703-790-2672 Email: [email protected] http://www.hps.org In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem1 in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem above that received from natural sources. Doses from natural background radiation in the United States average about 0.3 rem per year. A dose of 5 rem will be accumulated in the first 17 years of life and about 25 rem in a lifetime of 80 years. Estimation of health risk associated with radiation doses that are of similar magnitude as those received from natural sources should be strictly qualitative and encompass a range of hypothetical health outcomes, including the possibility of no adverse health effects at such low levels. There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks following high-dose exposures. However, below 5–10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent. In part because of the insurmountable intrinsic and methodological difficulties in determining if the health effects that are demonstrated at high radiation doses are also present at low doses, current radiation protection standards and practices are based on the premise that any radiation dose, no matter how small, may result in detrimental health effects, such as cancer and hereditary genetic damage.
    [Show full text]
  • Practice Standards for Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy
    The ASRT Practice Standards for Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Radiation Therapy ©2019 American Society of Radiologic Technologists. All rights reserved. Reprinting all or part of this document is prohibited without advance written permission of the ASRT. Send reprint requests to the ASRT Publications Department, 15000 Central Ave. SE, Albuquerque, NM 87123-3909. Effective June 23, 2019 Table of Contents Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Format ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Definition .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Education and Certification ...................................................................................................................... 5 Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Scope of Practice .......................................................................... 6 Standards ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 Standard One – Assessment ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Interventional Radiology Curriculum for Medical Students
    Interventional Radiology Curriculum for Medical Students Second Edition A brief overview of the most common clinical R conditions C SE handled by IRs May 2019 Editorial Board Editor in Chief Christoph Binkert Editors Roberto Cazzato Jan Jaap Janssen Gregory Makris Arash Najafi Fatemeh Sakhinia CIRSE Central Office Neutorgasse 9/6 1010 Vienna Austria Phone: +43 1 904 2003 Fax: +43 1 904 2003 30 E-mail: [email protected] www.cirse.org © All rights reserved by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe / 2019 Table of Contents Introduction 2 1 Vascular IR 3 1.1 Peripheral Vascular Disease 3 1.2 Aneurysms 4 1.3 Venous Disease 5 1.3.1 Venous Thromboembolic Disease 5 1.3.2 Chronic Venous Obstruction 5 1.4 Embolisation for Benign Conditions 6 1.4.1 Uterine Fibroid Embolisation 6 1.4.2 Prostate Artery Embolisation 6 1.4.3 Gastrointestinal Bleeding 7 1.4.4 Gonadal Vein Embolisation 7 1.5 Access 8 1.5.1 Central Venous Access 8 1.5.2 Dialysis Shunt 8 2 Non-Vascular IR 9 2.1 Biopsies and Drainages 9 2.2 Biliary Procedures 9 2.3 Genitourinary Interventions 10 3 Interventional Oncology 11 3.1 Ablative Therapies 11 3.1.1 Liver Tumour Ablation 11 3.1.2 Renal Tumour Ablation 11 3.1.3 Lung Tumour Ablation 12 3.2 Liver Malignancy Embolisation 13 4 Musculoskeletal Interventions 14 4.1 Vertebral Compression Fractures and Vertebral Augmentation 14 4.2 Lower Back Pain 15 References 16 CIRSE and Interventional Radiology 18 Supporting IR’s Next Generation 19 Introduction In order to make medical students aware of the ever-increasing role of IR in hospital medicine and to provide guidance on the learning outcomes required to prepare medical students for their role during residency years, CIRSE published the first edition of the Interventional Radiology Curriculum for Medical Students in 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Page 1 of 13
    Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Page 1 of 13 Dental Policy An Independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Title: Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Professional Institutional Original Effective Date: January 1, 2007 Original Effective Date: January 1, 2007 Revision Date(s): May 14, 2013; Revision Date(s): May 14, 2013; December 31, 2013; May 13, 2015; December 31, 2013; May 13, 2015; April 27, 2016; January 18, 2017; April 27, 2016; January 18, 2017; February 15, 2018; July 3, 2019; February 15, 2018; July 3, 2019, October 1, 2020; May 21, 2021 October 1, 2020; May 21, 2021 Current Effective Date: May 21, 2021 Current Effective Date: May 21, 2021 State and Federal mandates and health plan member contract language, including specific provisions/exclusions, take precedence over Medical Policy and must be considered first in determining eligibility for coverage. To verify a member's benefits, contact Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas Customer Service. The BCBSKS Medical Policies contained herein are for informational purposes and apply only to members who have health insurance through BCBSKS or who are covered by a self-insured group plan administered by BCBSKS. Medical Policy for FEP members is subject to FEP medical policy which may differ from BCBSKS Medical Policy. The medical policies do not constitute medical advice or medical care. Treating health care providers are independent contractors and are neither employees nor agents of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas and are solely responsible for diagnosis, treatment and medical advice. If your patient is covered under a different Blue Cross and Blue Shield plan, please refer to the Medical Policies of that plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (Imrt) Hs-094
    INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY (IMRT) HS-094 Easy Choice Health Plan, Inc. Exactus Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. Harmony Health Plan of Illinois, Inc. Missouri Care, Incorporated WellCare Health Insurance of Arizona, Inc., operating in Hawai‘i as ‘Ohana Health Plan, Inc. WellCare of Kentucky, Inc. WellCare Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc. WellCare Health Plans of New Jersey, Inc. WellCare of Connecticut, Inc. WellCare of Florida, Inc., operating in Florida as Staywell Intensity-Modulated WellCare of Georgia, Inc. Radiation Therapy WellCare of Louisiana, Inc. Policy Number: HS-094 WellCare of New York, Inc. WellCare of South Carolina, Inc. Original Effective Date: 4/2/2009 WellCare of Texas, Inc. Revised Date(s): 4/30/2010; 4/30/2011; WellCare Prescription Insurance, Inc. 4/5/2012; 4/11/2013; 3/6/2014; 3/5/2015; Windsor Health Plan, Inc. 3/3/2016 APPLICATION STATEMENT The application of the Clinical Coverage Guideline is subject to the benefit determinations set forth by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) National and Local Coverage Determinations and state-specific Medicaid mandates, if any. Clinical Coverage Guideline page 1 Original Effective Date: 4/2/2009 - Revised: 4/30/2010, 4/30/2011, 4/5/2012, 4/11/2013, 3/6/2014, 3/5/2015, 3/3/2016 INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY (IMRT) HS-094 DISCLAIMER The Clinical Coverage Guideline is intended to supplement certain standard WellCare benefit plans. The terms of a member’s particular Benefit Plan, Evidence of Coverage, Certificate of Coverage, etc., may differ significantly from this Coverage Position. For example, a member’s benefit plan may contain specific exclusions related to the topic addressed in this Clinical Coverage Guideline.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Safety in Dental Radiography
    Dental Radiography Series Radiation Safety in dental radiography. The goal of dental radiography is to obtain diagnostic information while keeping the exposure to the patient and dental staff at minimum levels. While some exposure to radiation is acceptable in medical practice, it should be understood that levels of radiation exposure to patients, dental staff, and other nearby occupants should be kept to As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) to reduce health risks from ionizing radiation. Any methods that can reduce patient and area radiation exposures without major difficulty, great expense or inconvenience, should be practiced. Practitioners must always consider the risk of patient exposure with the benefit of diagnosis. Radiograph Guidelines 4 Radiation safety considerations 4 Exposure 5 Patient selection 5 Film 6 Rectangular Collimation 7 Image Density 7 Film Cassettes 7 Minimal Exposure 8 Exposure Protection Basic principals of radiation safety Additional radiation safety controls commonly utilized for dental facilities Engineering controls 9 Summary 9 References Radiograph Guidelines One way to do this is with the use of radiographic patient All x-ray equipment, regardless of date of manufacture, is selection criteria. subject to state and federal x-ray equipment regulations. Guidelines for the prescription of dental radiographs have Although proper filtration is not usually a problem with been developed by an expert panel of dentists sponsored modern equipment, older x-ray machines should be tested by the public health service. by a radiation physicist or qualified technician to verify the presence of the correct amount of filtration. A free brochure is available from Carestream Dental (see last page for ordering information) publication The kilovoltage or kVp setting is one of the most 8616 “Guidelines for prescribing dental radiographs.” important factors that determines the image contrast, The guidelines are voluntary and are intended only as a as well as dosage to the patient.
    [Show full text]
  • How Do Radioactive Materials Move Through the Environment to People?
    5. How Do Radioactive Materials Move Through the Environment to People? aturally occurring radioactive materials Radionuclides can be removed from the air in Nare present in our environment and in several ways. Particles settle out of the our bodies. We are, therefore, continuously atmosphere if air currents cannot keep them exposed to radiation from radioactive atoms suspended. Rain or snow can also remove (radionuclides). Radionuclides released to them. the environment as a result of human When these particles are removed from the activities add to that exposure. atmosphere, they may land in water, on soil, or Radiation is energy emitted when a on the surfaces of living and non-living things. radionuclide decays. It can affect living tissue The particles may return to the atmosphere by only when the energy is absorbed in that resuspension, which occurs when wind or tissue. Radionuclides can be hazardous to some other natural or human activity living tissue when they are inside an organism generates clouds of dust containing radionu- where radiation released can be immediately clides. absorbed. They may also be hazardous when they are outside of the organism but close ➤ Water enough for some radiation to be absorbed by Radionuclides can come into contact with the tissue. water in several ways. They may be deposited Radionuclides move through the environ- from the air (as described above). They may ment and into the body through many also be released to the water from the ground different pathways. Understanding these through erosion, seepage, or human activities pathways makes it possible to take actions to such as mining or release of radioactive block or avoid exposure to radiation.
    [Show full text]