Back to the list
Congress: ECR25
Poster Number: C-20117
Type: Poster: EPOS Radiographer (scientific)
Authorblock: P. Clinch, G. Havariyoun, V. Piccio, S. Rees, C. Forster, J. Clinch; London/UK
Disclosures:
Patricia Clinch: Nothing to disclose
Glafkos Havariyoun: Nothing to disclose
Vincent Piccio: Nothing to disclose
Sian Rees: Nothing to disclose
Charlotte Forster: Nothing to disclose
James Clinch: Nothing to disclose
Keywords: Paediatric, Radiation physics, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Conventional radiography, Dosimetry, Radiation safety, Dosimetric comparison
Purpose This work involved comparing paediatric diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) across three UK NHS hospital sites for typical paediatric examinations carried out on a range of diagnostic x-ray systems. Approximately 22,000 patient doses were analysed between 2019 and 2024 (Fig 1).  11,500 (Fig 2) of these were used for comparison against EDRLs.The aims of this study were To compare Local DRLs to European DRLs where possible. To perform an audit of paediatric doses and establish paediatric DRLs for the most common examinations To perform...
Read more Methods and materials Examinations involving the standard number of views and more than 20 procedures per age group were retrospectively analysed. Data from Site 1 (2023-2024) and 2 (2021-2022) was taken from a dose management system. Data from Site 3 (2022 - 2023) was taken from a Radiology Information System where data was manually inputted.  Equipment at Site 1: Samsung GC80, Samsung GC85,Samsung GU60, Samsung GC80, GEXR656. Equipment at Site 2: Samsung GC85. Equipment at Site 3: Philips Digital Diagnost, Xograph Buckystar, GE Rad16, GE Rad 14x, Fuji...
Read more Results [fig 1] [fig 2] [fig 1] From Table 1, the majority of local DRLs for all sites were significantly lower than the European DRLs. The exceptions were; Site 1, where the local DRLs for Pelvis examinations (4-9 year old) (n=79) and (10-13 year old) (n=88) exceeded the EDRL by 7.2% and 39% respectively Site 2, where the local DRL for Chest examinations (0-3 year old) (n=178) exceeded the EDRL by 32% and Site 3, where the local DRL for Pelvis AP examinations (10-13 year old) (n=74), exceeded the European...
Read more Conclusion Local DRLs were compared to the European DRLs. Investigations will take place for those examinations where the EDRLs have been exceeded. New local DRLs have been established for a number of other examinations; these will form the foundation of increasing awareness of doses to paediatrics at all sites. This study identified dose variations at each site for the same examinations. Although different manufacturers and equipment are present at each site, efforts should be made to harmonise doses where possible. This should be...
Read more References 1. Eurosafe Imaging, https://www.eurosafeimaging.org/2. Radiation Protection 185: European Guidelines on Diagnostic Reference Levels for Paediatric Imaging. European Union (2018)
Read more
GALLERY