Performance Characteristics of Radiographic equipment in Selected Healthcare Institutions in Southwest Nigeria

Achuka Justina Ada; Usikalu Mojisola Rachael; Aweda Moses Adebayo; Adeyinka Abiodun Oludotun; Famurewa Olusola Comfort; Akinpelu Akinwumi

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2020.4925

Authors

Achuka Justina Ada Department of Physics, Covenant University Ota, Ogun, Nigeria
Usikalu Mojisola Rachael Department of Physics, Covenant University Ota, Ogun, Nigeria
Aweda Moses Adebayo Department of Radiation Biology, Radiotherapy and Radiodiagnosis, College of Medicine, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Idi-Araba, Lagos, Nigeria
Adeyinka Abiodun Oludotun Department of Radiology, University College Hospital Ibadan, Nigeria
Famurewa Olusola Comfort Department of Radiology, Obafemi Awolowo University Hospital Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Akinpelu Akinwumi Department of Physics, Covenant University Ota, Ogun, Nigeria

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2020.4925

Keywords:

Radiographic equipment, Performance quality, Improvement, Radiation safety, Southwest Nigeria

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of radiographic equipment performance is the recommended strategy for the verification of factors used in radiodiagnosis. Sometimes, the performance of the equipment is compromised due to the lack of adoption of the appropriate procedures and/or techniques.

AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the performance quality of the radiographic equipment in the study area in order to optimize the radiation dose delivered to the patients using these facilities and enhance their safety.

METHODS: The performance characteristic of selected radiographic equipment was determined using MagicMax quality control kits and test object. Radiographic equipment in eight selected radiodiagnostic centers designated as C1-C8 was assessed.

RESULTS: The results showed that all the radiography units in the studied centers passed the kVp reproducibility and mAs linearity tests with the exception of center C2. The kVp deviation for the centers varied between 2.0 and 7.7%, with the highest deviation in center C5 and lowest value in center C6. Center C7 has the highest deviation (–13%) of mAs, while the lowest value was obtained in center C6 (0%). The dose was lowest in center C1 and highest in center C3. The half-value layer, mAs, and filtration values had a stronger correlation with the incident air kerma dose compared to the other parameters. In addition, 50% of the equipment passed all the performance tests.

CONCLUSION: The study revealed that the performance characteristics of radiographic equipment in the studied area require improvement. Periodic monitoring of the equipment performance is recommended for adoption and enforcement to enhance quality practices and radiation safety.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Hart D, Wall BF, Hillier MC, Shrimpton PC. Frequency and Collective Dose for Medical and Dental X-ray Examinations in the UK, 2008. England: Health Protection Agency: HPA-CRCE-012; 2010. p. 1-32.

Health Services Executive. Population Dose from General X-ray and Nuclear Medicine: 2010. United Kingdom: HSE, Medical Exposure Radiation Unit; 2010. p. 1-15.

World Health Organization. Communicating Radiation Risks in Paediatric Imaging: Information to Support Healthcare Discussions About Benefit and Risk. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. p. 16-7.

National Health Service. Diagnostic Imaging Datasets Statistical Release: Provisional Monthly Statistics 2015 to June 2016. England: National Health Service; 2016. p. 4-10.

National Health Service. Diagnostic Imaging Datasets Statistical Release: Provisional Monthly Statistics January 2016 to January 2017. England: National Health Service; 2017. p. 4-10.

Achuka JA, Aweda MA, Usikalu MR. Cancer risks from head radiography procedures. IOP Conf Series Earth Environ Sci. 2018;173:012038. https://doi. org/10.1088/1755-1315/173/1/012038.

International Atomic Energy Agency. Applying Radiation Safety Standards in Diagnostic Radiology and Interventional Procedures Using X-rays. Safety Standards Series No. 39. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2006. p. 1-110.

International Atomic Energy Agency. Quality Assurance Programme for Computed Tomography: Diagnostic and Therapy Applications. IAEA Human Health Series No 19. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2012. p. 1-171.

Korir GK, Wambani JS, Ochieng BO. Optimization of patient protection and image quality in diagnostic radiology. East Afr Med J. 2010;87(3):127-33. https://doi.org/10.4314/eamj. v87i3.62198 PMid:23057309

Wambani JS, Onditi EG, Korir GK, Korir IK. Patient doses in general radiography examinations. South Afr Radiogr. 2015;53(1):22-6.

Panicker TM, Tina-Angelina JT, Korath MK, Mohandas K, Jagadeesan K. Entrance skin dose estimation in x-ray lumbar spine lateral procedure: Conventional vs digital x-ray units: A pilot study. JIMSA. 2013;26(4):219-20.

Johnson HM, Neduzak C, Gallet J, Sandeman J. Trends and the determination of effective doses for standard x-ray procedures. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Radiological Protection of Patients in Diagnostic and Intervention of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA-CN-85-29; 2001.

Yacoob HY, Mohammed HA. Assessment of patients x-ray doses at three government hospitals in Duhok city lacking requirements of effective quality control. J Radiat Res Appl Sci. 2017;10(3):183-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras.2017.04.005

Ngaile JE, Muhogora WE, Nyanda AM. Some experiences from radiation protection of patients undergoing x-ray examinations in Tanzania. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Radiological Protection of Patients in Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, Malagu, Spain. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA-CN-85-113; 2001. p. 58-63. https://doi. org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a032639

Achuka JA, Aweda MA, Usikalu MR, Aborisade CA. Assessment of patient absorbed radiation dose during hysterosalpingography: A pilot study in Southwest Nigeria. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2020;10(2):131-40. https://doi.org/10.31661/ jbpe.v0i0.1054 PMid:32337179

Achuka JA, Aweda MA, Usikalu MR, Aborisade CA. Cancer risks from chest radiography of young adults: A pilot study at a health facility in South West Nigeria. Data Brief. 2018;19:1250- 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.05.123 PMid:30229004

Jibiri NN, Olowookere CJ. Patient dose audit of the most frequent radiographic examinations and the proposed local diagnostic reference levels in Southwestern Nigeria: Imperative for dose optimization. J Radiat Res Appl Sci. 2016;9:274-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras.2016.01.003

Rasuli B, Pashazadeh AM, Ghorbani M, Juybari RT, Naserpour M. Patient dose measurement in common medical x-ray examinations in Iran. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(1):374-86. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i1.5860 PMid:26894357

Taha TM. Study of the Quality Assurance of Conventional X-ray Machines Using Non-invasive KV Meter. Cairo, Egypt: Tenth Radiation Physics and Protection Conference; 2010. p. 105-10.

Njiki CD, Manyol JE, Yigbedeck YE, Ateba JF, Abouou DW, Ndah TN. Quality control of conventional radiology devices in selected hospitals of the republic of Cameroon. Int J Innov Sci. 2018;5(3):1-4.

Asadinezhad M, Bahreyni-Toossi MT, Ebrahiminia A, Giahi M. Quality control assessment of conventional radiology devices in Iran. Iran J Med Phys. 2017;14(1):1-7.

Akpochafor MO, Omojola AD, Soyebi KO, Adeneye SO, Aweda MA, Ajayi HB. Assessment of peak kilovoltage accuracy in ten selected X-ray centres in Lagos metropolis, South- Western Nigeria: A quality control test to determine energy output accuracy of an X-ray generator. J Health Res Rev. 2016;3(2):60-5. https://doi.org/10.4103/2394-2010.184231

Gholami M, Nemati F, Karami V. The evaluation of conventional x-ray exposure parameters including tube voltage and exposure time in private and governmental hospitals of Lorestan Province, Iran. Iran J Med Phys. 2015;12(1):85-92.

Ismail HA, Ali OA, Omer MA, Garelnabi ME, Mustafa NS. Evaluation of diagnostic radiology department in term of quality control of x-ray units at Khartoum state Hospitals. Int J Sci Res. 2015;4(1):1875-8.

Rasuli B, Pashazadeh AM, Birgani MJ, Ghorbani M, Naserpour M, Fatahi-Asl J. Quality control of conventional radiology devices in selected hospitals of Khuzestan Province, Iran. Iran J Med Phys. 2015;12(2):101-8.

Gholamhosseinian-Najjar H, Bahreyni-Toossi MT, Zare MH, Sadeghi HR, Sadough HR. Quality control status of radiology centers of hospitals associated with Mashhad university of medical sciences. Iran J Med Phys. 2014;11(1):182-7.

Khoshnazar AK, Hejazi P, Mokhtarian M, Nooshi S. Quality control of radiography equipment in Golestan Province of Iran. Iran J Med Phys. 2013;10(1-2):37-44.

Kareem AA, Hulugalle SN, Al-Hamadani HK. A quality control test for general x-ray machine. World Sci News. 2017;90:11-30.

Nzotta CC, Chiaghanam NO. Occupational radiation dose to x-ray workers in radiological units in Southeastern Nigeria. Afr J Med Phys Biomed Eng Sci. 2010;2:64-6.

Begum M, Mollah AS, Zaman MA, Rahman AK. Quality control tests in some diagnostic X-ray units in Bangladesh. J Med Phys. 2011;4(1):59-66. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjmp.v4i1.14688

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic and Interventional X-ray Procedures, Federal Guidance Report No 14, EPA- 402-R-10003. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency; 2014.

Milatovic AA, Spasic-Jokic VM, Jovanovic SI. Patient dose measurement and dose reduction in chest radiography. Nuclear Technol Radiat Protect. 2014;29(3):220-5. https://doi. org/10.2298/ntrp1403220m

Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. Radiation Safety in Manufacture, Supply and Use of Medical Diagnostic X-ray Equipment. AERB Safety Code No: AERB/RF-MED/SC-3. Mumbais Atomic Energy Regulatory Board; 2016. p. 35-7.