Radiation Safety Requirements - Essay Example

Radiation Safety It is widely agreed that laws play an instrumental role in checking the behavior of the public in order to ensure that it is in line with the societal expectations. Relative rules and regulations play an imperative role in preventing incidences of confusion and contradictions that can have far reaching implications on the holistic wellbeing of the society. Just like in other facets of the society, medical imaging has established distinctive rules and regulations that guide the behavior of the practitioners at various stages. In this respect, it is worth appreciating that radioactivity is very dangerous and medical implications are unbelievably adverse. For this reason, the Australian government has developed, implemented and enforced certain laws and regulations that guide behavior during the performance of duties. The medical field has particularly been given preference because procedural implications have a direct influence on the life of the patient. This paper evaluates the ‘RADIATION SAFETY ACT OF 1975-1999’. Specifically, it details the aspect of patient safety and measures that have been undertaken to ensure that this is upheld at all times. Undoubtedly, the Act has a very strong relationship with the medical imaging field and therefore influences related mannerisms and decisions. RADIATION SAFETY ACT 1975-1999 The Act addresses different issues related to the field of radiology in general concepts without placing particular emphasis on a specific field. It has five different parts that are further subdivided into various sections. Perhaps the most interesting faction pertains to part III named ‘RADIATION SAFETY GENERAL REGULATIONS’. In particular, section 19A addresses issues pertaining to abnormal or unplanned radiation exposure. In this respect, the Act acknowledges that patients, medical practitioners and visitors are all vulnerable to the exposure of radioactivity (UN 2000, p. 68). Besides detailing various forms through which the unplanned exposure occurs, the Act underscores that measures that need to be undertaken to protect the patients from the effects of the dangerous radiation. In their comprehensive review, Strom and Watson (2002, P. 375) indicate that during the radio therapeutic procedure, the lowest dose should be given to the patient. In this respect, it should be acknowledged that there are different doses that are received by the patient during the procedure. In particular, there are doses directed at the affected organ and there are other doses that reach the organs adjacent to this particular organ. Arguably, the organ that requires medical attention needs to receive the sufficient dose for optimal outcomes (Radiation protection in Nuclear Medicare, 2008). Thus if the radiation to that particular tissue is insufficient, the level of effectiveness of the procedure would be reduced significantly. On the other hand, measures need to be undertaken to ensure that doses reaching other issues are minimal. Also worth acknowledging for their contribution to patient safety during the procedure are the operational and design consideration. In his informative research, Bossuyt (2003, p. 8) asserts that the entire system and equipment need to be well positioned to ensure that the doses produced are sufficient, relevant and effective. For this reason, it is imperatively important to ensure that the equipment is in good condition to prevent incidences of leakages as well as accidental overdoses. In essence, the design as well as usage of the relative equipment needs to aim at preventing maladministration of the particular radiation doses because the cases have serious consequences (European Commission, 1998, p. 71). Another measure that has contributed significantly to the protection of patients entails the calibration of the particular radiotherapy equipment employed during the procedure (Radiation Protection in Radiotherapy, 2008). In this regard, calibration as well as testing of the performance of the equipment needs to be undertaken during the initial commissioning stages, after repairs, during periodical modifications to meet the needs of the patients or after a change of the source. This procedure should be in line with the tendered specifications which should also act as benchmarks. Statistical evidence ascertains that errors that are made during the process of calibration have had adverse impacts on a significant percentage of patients (Radiation Incident Reporting Requirement, 2007). Perhaps the most important aspect that has been addressed in a bid to ensure patient safety is the clinical dosimetry. This is all encompassing comprising of aspects related to planning methods, prescribed doses and delivery of the respective treatment (Radiation Safety manual, 2005). To ensure the safety of the patients, the preceding factors need to be in line with clinically acceptable as well as consistent protocols. Furthermore, the procedures that are employed in the planning and delivery of the treatment need to aim at minimizing any risk errors that could likely occur. In his review, Wegner (2007, P. 8) argues that the need for ensuring that the methods of planning, prescribing, documenting and delivering the doses to be consistent with established national or international standards is integral. Notably, the above mentioned efforts cannot be attained without incorporating the aspect of quality assurance in the entire procedure. To ensure sustainability of relative efforts, imaging personnel are encouraged to develop a comprehensive and distinctive quality assurance program (Applying Radiation Safety Standards in Nuclear Medicine, 2005). This should address all aspects of patient safety and be reviewed regularly to incorporate important emergent concerns. This would go a long way in enhancing quality and efficiency in delivering services in medical imaging. Undoubtedly, the preceding measures are critical in safeguarding the safety of the patients during medical imaging. Besides the patients, the medical personnel also benefit in different ways from the implementation of the respective measures. In particular, incorporating the measures in the procedures ensures that patients get effective doses of their treatment. This implies that the recovery process is likely to shortened (Metler and Voelz 2002, p. 1558). Furthermore, the negative health implications that are associated with over dosage are likely to be kept at bay. In essence, the health of the patient is assured. The medical personnel would equally be protected from the negative effects of the waves. In this respect, it is worth appreciating that incidences of leakage affect the patient, medical practitioners attending to the particular patients, the visitors and the environment that is adjacent to the particular facility. Thus by ensuring that all procedures are correct, the medical personnel would be also contributing significantly to environmental conservation and protection. Finally, safeguarding the safety of the patients during medical imaging is instrumental in enhancing efficiency and quality performance. Consistent successful outcomes greatly improve the image of the particular facility. From an economic point of view, this not only saves the resources that would have otherwise been employed in addressing the adverse after effects but it also aids in attracting and maintaining clients. To a great extent, this contributes significantly to the economic stability of the facility. References Applying radiation safety standards in nuclear medicine. 2005. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1207_web.pdf (Accessed 28th March, 2012). Bossuyt, P. 2003. The STARD statement for reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: Explanation and elaboration. Clinical Chemotherapy, 49, 7-8. European Commission. 1998. Radiation Protection 100. USA: Luxembourg Mettler, F and G. Voelz . 2002. Major radiation exposure-what to expect and how to respond. The New England Journal of Medicine, 346 (20): 1554-1561. Radiation Incident Reporting Requirements. 2007. http://www.health.vic.gov.au/environment/radiation. (Accessed 28th, March, 2012) Radiation Protection in Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. 2008. http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/rps/rps14_1.pdf. (Accessed 28th March, 2012). Radiation Protection in Nuclear Medicine. 2008. http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/comment/dr_sg_nucmed2.pdf. (Accessed 28th March, 2012). Radiation Protection in Radiotherapy. 2008. http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/rps/rps14_3.pdf. (Accessed 28th March, 2012). Radiation Safety Manual. 2005. www.southernhealth.org.au/imaging/radiation_safety_manual_101005.pdf. (Accessed 28th March, 2012). Strom, D and C. Watson. 2002. On being understood: clarity and jargon in radiation protection. Health Physics the Radiation Safety Journal, 82 (3): 373-386. United Nations. 2000. Ionizing radiation: Sources and biological effects. USA: UN Wagner, L. 2007. Radiation injury is a potentially serious complication to fluoroscopically guided complex interventions. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal, 3 (22): 1-12. Read More