الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 197 |  |  |
| | | from | 197 | | |
Abstract
Radiation is used in different areas of everyday life, such as medicine, agriculture, geology, mining, industry, scientific applications and Nuclear power. Radiation exposure can cause severe health hazards and it can affect merely all body organs. Studies has confirmed that exposure to ionizing radiation causes cancers and WHO named radiation as a carcinogenic.
Radiation exposure in hospitals occurs in many procedures, and it account for the largest number of workers occupationally exposed to radiation, which necessitate strict radiation safety measures and ensuring compliance to these radiation safety procedures.
This study aimed to measure the knowledge, attitude and practice of radiology technicians regarding radiation health hazards in one of the largest university hospitals in Egypt.
Sixty - one Radiology technicians working in Ain-Shams University Hospitals participated in the study as: 15 radiology technicians worked in Radiodiagnosis & Intervention Radiology Department in Ain-Shams specialized hospital and the remaining 46 worked in Radiodiagnosis & Intervention Radiology Department and in Oncology Department in El-Demerdash hospitals
Data were collected using a constructed interview questionnaire. The questionnaire was in Arabic language, to measure technicians’ knowledge, attitudes and radiation safety practices. An observation check list was also used, to measure radiology technicians’ radiation safety practices and the radiation safety measures adopted by the department.
Result of this study showed that only 15 (24.6) technicians evaluated their radiology knowledge as very good. 23 (37.7%) out of 61 technicians scored less than 50% in the radiation knowledge score. A knowledge defect as regard radiation safety measures was found as only 4 (6.6%) technicians correctly knew the occupational radiation exposure dose limits. As regard radiation safety courses only 4 technicians attended radiation safety courses however attending radiation safety course did not affect their radiation safety knowledge nor attitudes when compared with those who did not attend any radiation safety courses.
The study results showed that the technicians had positive attitudes for radiation safety as 55 (90.2%) scored 50% or more in radiation safety attitude score.
However a defect in adopting radiation safety practices was found as most of technicians 56 (91.8) scored less than 50 % in radiation safety practice score, and only 14 (23%) technicians used leaded apron all the time in the workplace and there was a statistically significant association between technicians’ usage of leaded aprons and technicians’ age and duration of experience in radiology.
It was found by the current study that there was no association between using leaded apron and educational level, gender, attending radiation safety courses or knowledge score.
A statistically significant association was found between using dosimeters and gender and attending radiation safety courses. However no association between using dosimeter and age, duration of experience in radiology, the hospital where the technicians worked, educational level or knowledge score was found.
A statistically significant association between gender and performing periodic medical examination was found, and between the hospitals were technicians worked and performing periodic medical examination; as technicians working in Ain-Shams specialized hospital performed periodic examination more when compared to technicians working in El-Demerdash hospital. There was discrepancy among the technicians regard the intervals of performing periodic medical examination and who paid for the periodic medical examination investigations.
It was also found from the observational checklist that all observed 14 radiology units in both El-Demerdash Hospitals and Ain-Shams specialized hospitals had radiation warning signs posted. However there was lack in the adopted radiation safety measures, as it was observed that none of the radiology units had a label for the last machine maintainace nor had any radiation safety manual available. None of the radiology units had an emergency protocol nor emergency phone number posted. Moreover one of the observed radiology units did not have leaded door; in fact there was no door at all.
It is recommended to provide radiation safety course and revise the content of already available courses.