Register for Updates | Search | Contacts | Site Map | Member Login

news

View Comment

Submitted by Graciano Paulo, European Federation of Radiographers
   Commenting on behalf of the organisation
Document Radiological protection in paediatric diagnostic and interventional radiology
 

EFRS COMMENTS
July, 2011
Draft Report for Consultation
Radiological protection in paediatric diagnostic and interventional radiology


The EFRS strongly supports this report, as it will be a very important tool to promote awareness about radiological protection in paediatrics radiology (one of the areas actually more in focus), mainly if it reinforces the importance of having a permanent contribution of a radiographer/technologist whenever a radiological procedure is performed.
Once this report assumes an international perspective, EFRS would suggest always the use of the word “Radiographer/Technologist”, whenever the text refers to a “Radiographer” or “Technologist”.



The EFRS Board, after hearing the EFRS group of experts, would like to contribute with the following comments:


Line 305: the exam should be performed by a radiographer/technologist and not by a qualified clinician.


Page 15 paragraph 3.2: add a note that or disclaimer that the list is not complete and that each organisation should make a protocol for the justification of each exam if national guidelines are missing.


Line 305: the exam should be performed by a radiographer/technologist and not by a qualified clinician.


Line 407: change once a year in “at a minimum of once a year QC”.


Line 561-563: focusing on immobilization of the child. With the new digital modalities the use of sandbags and plexi glass is not the best solution. Foam rubber devices are better recommended


Line 709: The use of a grid used in pediatric radiology is only necessary if the examination is not optimized. There is great potential in the digital systems, both regarding technical aspects, sensitivity of the detectors, software options etc., so a grid would only be necessary for older children (>12).


Line 738: a specific focus to image plane distance is mentioned. This should be a distance depending of the calibration of the grid. The distance of 100 cm is not always correct.
Line 834-862: because of differences between manufacturers exposure index, it should not be mentioned as a as a value for image quality indicator, once it only refers to the amount of radiation the detector or plate have got. Images may be clinically accepted with differences on the exposure index of more than 20 times.


Line 1643-1644: “comparison is not indicated”; to be consistent with line 354 it should be: “not justified”.