Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Apr 13;3(1):e227.
doi: 10.1002/deo2.227. eCollection 2023 Apr.

A follow-up questionnaire survey 2022 on radiation protection among 464 medical staff from 34 endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments in Japan

Collaborators, Affiliations

A follow-up questionnaire survey 2022 on radiation protection among 464 medical staff from 34 endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments in Japan

Shiro Hayashi et al. DEN Open. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Objectives: We surveyed and reported low protective equipment usage and insufficient knowledge among endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments in Japan in 2020. Two years later, we conducted a follow-up survey of doctors, nurses, and technologists in Japan.

Methods: We conducted a questionnaire survey on radiation protection from May to June 2022. The participants were medical staff, including doctors, nurses, and radiological and endoscopy technicians in endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments. The questionnaire included 17 multiple-choice questions divided into three parts: background, equipment, and knowledge.

Results: We surveyed 464 subjects from 34 institutions. There were 267 doctors (58%), 153 nurses (33%), and 44 technologists (9%). The rate of wearing a lead apron was 98% in this study. The rates of wearing a thyroid collar, lead glasses, and radiation dosimeter were 27%, 35%, and 74%, respectively. The trend of the protective equipment rate was similar to that of our previous study; however, radiation dosimetry among doctors was still low at 58%. The percentage of subjects who knew the radiation exposure (REX) dose of each procedure was low at 18%. Seventy-six percent of the subjects attended lectures on radiation protection, and 73% knew about the three principles of radiation protection; however, the concept of diagnostic reference levels was not well known (18%). Approximately 60% of the subjects knew about the exposure dose increasing cancer mortality (63%) and the 5-year lens REX limit (56%).

Conclusions: There was some improvement in radiation protection equipment or education, but relatively little compared to the 2020 survey of endoscopy departments.

Keywords: Japan; endoscopy staff; fluoroscopy; questionnaire; radiation protection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author Mamoru Takenaka is an AE of Digestive Endoscopy. The author Ichiro Oda is an AE of Digestive Endoscopy. The author Yousuke Nakai is an AE of Digestive Endoscopy. The author Seiichiro Abe is an AE of DEN Open. The rest of the authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Differences by the profession.

References

    1. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) . Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. ICRP publication 85. Ann ICRP 2000; 30: 49–50. - PubMed
    1. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) . Education and training in radiological protection for diagnostic and interventional procedures ICRP Publication 113. Ann ICRP 2009; 39: 7–68. - PubMed
    1. World Gastroenterology Organisation . Radiation protection in the endoscopy suite. 2009. [cited Sep 15, 2022]; Available from: https://www.worldgastroenterology.org/guidelines/global‐guidelines/radia...
    1. Dumonceau JM, Garcia‐Fernandez FJ, Verdun FR et al. Radiation protection in digestive endoscopy: European Society of Digestive Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 408–21. - PubMed
    1. Soye JA, Paterson A. A survey of awareness of radiation dose among health professionals in Northern Ireland. Br J Radiol 2008; 81: 725–9. - PubMed