Attitudes to radiation safety and cholangiogram interpretation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a UK survey
Attitudes to radiation safety and cholangiogram interpretation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a UK survey
Background: Fluoroscopy during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) exposes staff and patients to potentially harmful ionizing radiation. We performed a UK survey to explore trainee and trainer attitudes to radiation protection and cholangiogram interpretation in ERCP.
Methods: An electronic 10-point survey was prospectively distributed to endoscopy unit leads, training programme directors between October and November 2019. Only UK-based ERCP trainees and trainers with hands-on procedural exposure were eligible for the survey.
Results: The survey was completed by 107 respondents (58 trainees and 49 trainers), with an estimated overall response rate of 46%. Overall, 49% of respondents were up to date with their radiation protection course, 38% were aware of European Basic safety standards directive (BSSD), 38% wore radiation protection goggles, and 40% were aware of the average radiation screening dose per ERCP procedure. Compared with trainers, trainees were less likely to routinely wear thyroid protection shields (76% vs 92%; p=0.028), have awareness of the BSSD (20% vs 49%; p=0.037) or know their average procedural radiation dosages (21% vs 63%; p<0.001). With regard to cholangiogram interpretation, only 26% had received formal training, with 97% of trainees expressing a desire for further training.
Conclusion: This survey highlights a relative complacency in safety attitudes to radiation protection during ERCP. These data provide impetus to improve training and quality assurance in radiation protection, which should be regarded as a mandatory safety aspect prior to commencing hands-on ERCP training.
550-556
Siau, Keith
ed8f2716-22f7-47cd-ad3b-e035b12a9842
Webster, George
0d54caff-75d5-4a5f-b2cc-b9de1c4e0344
Wright, Mark
43325ef9-3459-4c75-b3bf-cf8d8dac2a21
Maher, Ben
d2b726ca-deab-4ccb-b942-cab2134c669e
Stedman, Brian
180a4644-f670-4da1-84db-9d5640e4ec1d
Johnson, Gavin
1cd7b817-0168-48a0-a392-71944cbfa3d7
Ahmad, Saqib
42b1b1f9-1537-46fa-9cb2-fa570f7c081a
Tehami, Nadeem
c3669784-48eb-406d-b62b-8a660e9d15b4
1 January 2021
Siau, Keith
ed8f2716-22f7-47cd-ad3b-e035b12a9842
Webster, George
0d54caff-75d5-4a5f-b2cc-b9de1c4e0344
Wright, Mark
43325ef9-3459-4c75-b3bf-cf8d8dac2a21
Maher, Ben
d2b726ca-deab-4ccb-b942-cab2134c669e
Stedman, Brian
180a4644-f670-4da1-84db-9d5640e4ec1d
Johnson, Gavin
1cd7b817-0168-48a0-a392-71944cbfa3d7
Ahmad, Saqib
42b1b1f9-1537-46fa-9cb2-fa570f7c081a
Tehami, Nadeem
c3669784-48eb-406d-b62b-8a660e9d15b4
Siau, Keith, Webster, George and Wright, Mark
,
et al.
(2021)
Attitudes to radiation safety and cholangiogram interpretation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a UK survey.
Frontline Gastroenterology, 12 (7), .
(doi:10.1136/flgastro-2020-101521).
Abstract
Background: Fluoroscopy during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) exposes staff and patients to potentially harmful ionizing radiation. We performed a UK survey to explore trainee and trainer attitudes to radiation protection and cholangiogram interpretation in ERCP.
Methods: An electronic 10-point survey was prospectively distributed to endoscopy unit leads, training programme directors between October and November 2019. Only UK-based ERCP trainees and trainers with hands-on procedural exposure were eligible for the survey.
Results: The survey was completed by 107 respondents (58 trainees and 49 trainers), with an estimated overall response rate of 46%. Overall, 49% of respondents were up to date with their radiation protection course, 38% were aware of European Basic safety standards directive (BSSD), 38% wore radiation protection goggles, and 40% were aware of the average radiation screening dose per ERCP procedure. Compared with trainers, trainees were less likely to routinely wear thyroid protection shields (76% vs 92%; p=0.028), have awareness of the BSSD (20% vs 49%; p=0.037) or know their average procedural radiation dosages (21% vs 63%; p<0.001). With regard to cholangiogram interpretation, only 26% had received formal training, with 97% of trainees expressing a desire for further training.
Conclusion: This survey highlights a relative complacency in safety attitudes to radiation protection during ERCP. These data provide impetus to improve training and quality assurance in radiation protection, which should be regarded as a mandatory safety aspect prior to commencing hands-on ERCP training.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 18 November 2020
Published date: 1 January 2021
Additional Information:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 477517
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/477517
ISSN: 2041-4137
PURE UUID: a9bb98df-0430-412f-bc6f-b65ca7510010
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 07 Jun 2023 17:08
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 02:13
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Keith Siau
Author:
George Webster
Author:
Mark Wright
Author:
Ben Maher
Author:
Brian Stedman
Author:
Gavin Johnson
Author:
Saqib Ahmad
Author:
Nadeem Tehami
Corporate Author: et al.
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics