Attitudes to radiation safety and cholangiogram interpretation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): A UK survey
dc.contributor.author | Ahmad, Saqib | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-12-15T10:30:25Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-12-15T10:30:25Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021-12 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Siau, K. et al. (2021) ‘Attitudes to radiation safety and cholangiogram interpretation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a UK survey’, Frontline Gastroenterology, 12(7), pp. 550–556. | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/15034 | |
dc.description.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. | |
dc.description.uri | https://fg.bmj.com/content/12/7/550 | en_US |
dc.publisher | Frontline Gastroenterology | en_US |
dc.subject | Fluoroscopy | en_US |
dc.subject | Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) | en_US |
dc.subject | Attitudes to radiation protection | en_US |
dc.title | Attitudes to radiation safety and cholangiogram interpretation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): A UK survey | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
rioxxterms.funder | Default funder | en_US |
rioxxterms.identifier.project | Default project | en_US |
rioxxterms.version | NA | en_US |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1136/flgastro-2020-101521 | en_US |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_US |
refterms.dateFOA | 2021-12-15T10:30:26Z | |
refterms.panel | Unspecified | en_US |
html.description.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. | en_US |