European survey on the use of patient contact shielding during radiological examinations

Claudio Granata; Erik Briers; Cristian Candela-Juan; John Damilakis; Timo De Bondt; Dario Faj; Shane Foley; Guy Frija; Hugo de Las Heras Gala; Peter Hiles; Ruben Pauwels; Marta Sans Merce; Georgios Simantirakis; Eliseo Vano; Patrick Gilligan; ESR, ESPR, EFOMP, EFRS, and EURADOS

doi:10.1186/s13244-023-01452-3

European survey on the use of patient contact shielding during radiological examinations

Insights Imaging. 2023 Jun 19;14(1):108. doi: 10.1186/s13244-023-01452-3.

Authors

Claudio Granata¹, Erik Briers², Cristian Candela-Juan^{3

4}, John Damilakis^{5

6}, Timo De Bondt^{5

7

8}, Dario Faj^{9

10}, Shane Foley^{5

11

12}, Guy Frija^{5

13}, Hugo de Las Heras Gala³, Peter Hiles¹⁴, Ruben Pauwels^{15

16}, Marta Sans Merce^{9

17}, Georgios Simantirakis^{9

18}, Eliseo Vano^{5

19}, Patrick Gilligan^{3

20}; ESR, ESPR, EFOMP, EFRS, and EURADOS

Affiliations

¹ Department of Paediatric Radiology, Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. claudio.granata@burlo.trieste.it.
² Member ESR‑Patient Advisory Group, Patient Advocate, Hasselt, Belgium.
³ European Federation of Organizations for Medical Physics, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
⁴ Centro Nacional de Dosimetría (CND), Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria, Valencia, Spain.
⁵ European Society of Radiology - EuroSafe Imaging, Vienna, Austria.
⁶ University of Crete, Iraklion, Crete, Greece.
⁷ VITAZ, Department of medical physics, Moerlandstraat 1, 9100, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium.
⁸ AZ Sint-Blasius, Department of medical physics, Kroonveldlaan 50, 9200, Dendermonde, Belgium.
⁹ European Radiation Dosimetry Group, Neuherberg, Germany.
¹⁰ Faculty of Dental Medicine and Health, Osijek, Croatia.
¹¹ European Federation of Radiographer Societies, Utrecht, Belgium.
¹² Radiography and Diagnostic Imaging, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
¹³ Université de Paris, Paris, France.
¹⁴ Glan Clwyd Hospital, Bodelwyddan, Denbighshire, UK.
¹⁵ Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
¹⁶ Department of Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
¹⁷ Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
¹⁸ Greek Atomic Energy Commission, Agia Paraskevi, Athens, Greece.
¹⁹ Radiology Department, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
²⁰ Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles St., Dublin, Ireland.

Abstract

Objectives: Contact shielding (CS) of patients during X-ray studies has been used for decades to protect radiosensitive organs. This practice has not changed much despite increasing evidence that CS is not useful in many cases. The Gonad And Patient Shielding (GAPS) group-founded by representatives of the main European bodies involved in radiology-promoted this survey to assess the current practice of CS among European radiology departments and the attitude towards a non-shielding policy.

Methods: Over a four-month period (15 May-15th September 2021) European Society of Radiology and European Society of Paediatric Radiology radiologist members were invited to respond to a web-based questionnaire consisting of 59 questions.

Results: 225 centres from 35 countries responded to this survey. CS was routinely applied in at least one radiological modality in 49.2% of centres performing studies in adults, 57.5% of centres performing studies in children, and 47.8% of centres performing studies on pregnant women. CS was most frequently used in conventional radiography, where the most frequently shielded organs were the gonads, followed by thyroid, female breasts, and eye lens. 83.6% respondents would follow European recommendations on the use of CS when provided by the main European bodies involved in radiology.

Conclusions: This review shows that CS is still largely used across Europe. However, a non-shielding policy could be adopted in most departments if European professional societies provided recommendations. In this regard, a strong commitment by European and national professional societies to educate and inform practitioners, patients and carers is paramount.

Clinical relevance statement: According to this survey expectations of patients and carers, and skepticism among professionals about the limited benefits of CS are the most important obstacles to the application of a no-shielding policy. A strong commitment from European and national professional societies to inform practitioners, patients and carers is fundamental.

Keywords: Medical imaging; Patient shielding; Radiation protection; Surveys and questionnaires.