History of Interventional Fluoroscopy
Medical field has transformed radically in the past years. The need for safe movement of small instruments (including catheters) into the body organs and blood vessels initiated the introduction of interventional fluoroscopy among other medical methods. This began several decades ago with advancements in the medical practices (NCI, 2005). To avert invasive surgical procedures, it was necessary to establish and ratify interventional fluoroscopy. The process only needs a small incision thus minimizing infection risks and shortening the recovery period compared to the normal surgical procedures. Nonetheless, ionizing agents used in the interventional fluoroscopy are hazardous both to the patients and health parctioners involved in the process. There is a critical need for protection measures before realizing devastating repercussions. This paper presents credible information on intervention fluoroscopy based on radiation and health security for patients and staff. Evidently, radiation presents severe complications that affect performances at diverse levels of operation. Most institutions are recording high rate of staff demise due to the complications presented by radiation issues. In particular, radiation includes procedures in the Cardiac Cath Lab, interventional radiology, and CT among other methods. Radionuclide complexity is a major problem that individuals face.
Experience of the patient-Interventional Fluoroscopy procedure
Interventional Fluoroscopy procedures endorse patients with critical experiences during and after the process. Radiation complications are increasingly becoming prevalent and affect the performance capacity of most individuals. The complications hold requisite capacity of stalling an individual’s inclination to exemplary bodily performance. This affects economic and social standards. Evidently, radiation complications are cited as major health issues that should be reduced through formulation of amicable strategies and setting up of relevant infrastructural set ups to help curb its prevalence (Thompson, 2012). According to medical practitioners, there is an increase of radiation patients in diverse countries with US recording an increase of 10% in the year 2002. The increase was occasioned by inferior lifestyle activities and dietary systems that expose women and children to severe effects.
In US, health safety has been accorded the priority it deserves to boost productivity, reduce deaths, and improve lifespan of persons. The authorities have developed a superior health policy to revolutionize the health sector and to ensure that infrastructural support including efficient management of nursing resources is put in place. The policy seeks to address radiation complications through enhancement of radio safety campaigns and to integrate infrastructural setups to match the current needs. Indeed, there is a strong need for authorities to design requisite measures to help in reducing radiation complications that compromise health safety of individuals.
Risk to patient and staff
Increasing use of interventional fluoroscopy has elicited public health concerns regarding patients and healthcare providers. This is due to the increasing radiation exposure and cumulative health effects on the concerned victims. Patients and staff risk skin injuries, cancerous developments, organ damages, and other cumulative effects such lens damages as well as cataracts. In this context, it is important to manage radiation exposures to both patients and health practitioners. This is possible through the optimization of radiation dose and level of exposure.
There are short term risks experienced by patients upon undergoing interventional fluoroscopy/radiology (NCI, 2005). One such problem is the radiation-induced skin damage emanating from acute radiation levels/doses (>= 2Gy). It is hard to understand the extent of the damage until some weeks after the process. Nonetheless, repeated fluoroscopy might enhance the concerned skin damages and other related complications including organ damages and cancerous developments. Concurrently, long term effects on patients incorporate cancerous development mentioned earlier. Evidently, cancer development does not require any minimum dose (threshold); however, any exposure to lethal radiations can induce the development of cancer with the body. Precisely, interventional fluoroscopy procedures and other radiation methods expose patients to cancerous attack. Additionally, age and sex contribute considerable to the mentioned susceptibility.
Concurrently, health care providers are equally vulnerable to some risks (posed by interventional fluoroscopy) as indicated earlier. This occurs upon chronic contact with radiation molecules. Such health practitioners have experienced skin damages especially on hands and other parts of the body. Evidently, their hands are victimized since they are majorly involved in the fluoroscopic processes. Additionally, there are damages to the eye lenses (both to operators and their assistants). Even though cancer is unusual, leukemia and breast cancer among other have been noticed among the health practitioners.
Generally, health complications endorsed by radiation cause premature death and incapacitation. Concurrently, radiation problems present immense effects that range from economic, social, and psychological issues. In particular, exemplary economic standards cannot be achieved with poor health status. One needs to live in absolute good health to propel his propensity to effectual performance (Mayer, Sallis, Eckhardt, Creech, 1997). Nations seeking to leverage their economic capacity should enhance their health services to ensure development of safety with respect to interventional fluoroscopy. Achievement of good therapeutic assistance, involves a lot of resource usage since the services are deemed specialized. The services are also provided at selected health centers. This makes their acquisition complex. The complications are increasingly leading to loss of life with current statistics indicating that a large number patients and health care givers are affected considerably (Burgess, Jones, Morris & Rout, 2003). Critically, the radio-safety program is paramount if meaningful standards of performance and human development are to be achieved. Authorities should develop strong guidelines to enhance patients and healthcare givers’ protection against lethal radiations. According to Mayer et al. (1997), the radiology problems compromise body functioning since they cause nerve failure, cell death, and abnormal cell growth. Inferior management of body cells and nuclear leads to weak physical set up that cannot perform effectively (Miller et al, 2005). This explains why individuals should desist from engaging in the acts that may lead to radiation complications with immense effects.
Incidence and types of injuries (statistics)
As noted, radiation complications are increasingly posing massive threats health wise. In the American context, the incidences of skin injuries among patients who have undergone interventional fluoroscopy are astounding. Skin damages, organ injuries, cancerous development, and other injuries have been reported. Currently, there are increased number of patients who suffer from therapeutic levels of radionuclide’s that requires specialized treatment and proper care. According to US health department, the complications affect most individuals with statistics stating its prevalence at 39% (Romeijn, Ahuja, Dempsey & Kumar, 2006). Categorically, this percentage represents women, children and men who are exposed to radiation effects during interventional fluoroscopy. Morbidity or the rate of illnesses emanating from interventional fluoroscopy with regard to skin injury, cancer, and other related health concerns is high among survivors of interventional fluoroscopy. Of course this incidence depends on the number of fluoroscopic procedures one has attended in a given period. Health practitioners assert that, authorities should move with great speed to develop strong measures to help address the radiation problems. Precisely, the morbidity of the condition is high and numbers are escalating. This phenomenon initiates the need for remedial measures and optimization of radiation doses both for patients and healthcare providers.
Mortality rates emanating from the concerned injuries are considerable; however, the number is growing due to multiple procedures and increase in the use of interventional fluoroscopy in numerous medical processes (NCI, 2005). X-rays used in this context cause various health complications including cancer attacks. The cost incurred in establishing and implementing the fluorometric technology is high following the aspects of research, acquisition of ionizing materials, experts, and other related precautionary concerns. Additionally, cost incurred in the treatment of skin injuries and cancers developed is considerably high.
According to the current statistics, exposure of most individuals in US remains at 69% and the patient response rate of exposure increased by 31%. The increase is detrimental to various individuals whose radiation would escalate leading to unwarranted suffering. Consequently, lack of resources and the cost of attaining proper medical services for example, therapeutic services are high. The cost element prevents various individuals from receiving quality healthcare to assist on their recuperation (Romeijn et al, 2006). Clearly, radiation and safety issues currently stand at 39% increase in US and individuals should understand that none is indispensible from attracting the diseases. This is due to its causes and escalation rate that include exposure to air, light, heat and use of contaminated elements besides the interventional fluoroscopy. Interventional fluoroscopy utilizes ionizing radiation to guide tiny instrumental devices into the pathways of the body.
Methods of Protection
In the medical context, the advantages of properly performed interventional fluoroscopy usually outdo the radiation risks experienced. Nevertheless, pointless exposure to radiation can cause massive risks to both the patient and the concerned health care provider. Khalil (2011) stated that, superior strategies and policies should be developed to promote eradication of radiation related complications with relation to interventional fluoroscopy. Indeed, authorities, have a responsibility to craft requisite policies to revolutionize health system in most countries with strong focus to eradicating these detrimental radiation-related complications (Suresh et al, 2009). Firstly, concerned health parctioners should optimize ionization doses and minimize the rates of its use.
Using suitable operating limits for X-ray machines usually lower radiation doses to patients, health practitioners, and their assistants (NCI, 2005). Critically, it is crucial to train operators as well as their assistants to utilize radiation gadgets that provide tolerable image quality and viable dose-reduction. It is also important to inspect and maintain radiation equipment regularly. Physicians, technologists, medical parctioners, manufacturers, and governmental entities should strive to optimize radiation doses to patients assuming interventional fluoroscopy. It is also important to use safety devices while operating radioactive materials or working in an area exposed to radiation.
Patients need proper counseling on both the benefits and flaws of the interventional fluoroscopy for them to decide on the matter. Sensitization programs on radio-safety precautionary measures also form a paramount strategy in steering eradication of radiation complications (Schaefer -Prokop, 2011). The system is to facilitate patient and individual awareness of the causes of this disease and spell out precautionary guidelines to tame its escalation. The process is also to provide basic knowledge to patients on their responsibilities and the dangers of the diseases to ensure that they comply with medical directives. Similarly, integration and acquisition of modern technological equipment to drive medication process are critical (Prokop & Galanski, 2003). As noted, treatment of radiation complications requires immense infrastructural equipment and resources that most institutions lack. This has hindered provision of timely Medicare to victims hence exposes them to death (Prokop & Galanski, 2003).
Prevention and Treatment
Complications related to interventional fluoroscopy can be prevented and treated. It is imperative for patients and staff members to adhere to noble health practices for example, attendance to therapeutic services regularly as specified by medical officials. The patients should also exhibit high level of mental and psychological stability as a requisite preparedness measure (Heary, 2005). This is to enhance one’s response capacity to treatment and therapeutic services that require psychological strength for success. Ideally, therapeutic and relevant radiology services are cost intensive; nonetheless, use of optimal doses can help critically in the entire context (Schaefer -Prokop, 2011). These elements are crucial in facilitating recuperation processes for individuals to attain normalcy with respect to health. This is helpful in the prevention and treatment processes.
Follow-up with the patient and staff
Interventional fluoroscopy is a critical and helpful tool for managing certain illnesses. Nonetheless, risks involved are bountiful. After its application, patients and caregivers require thorough follow-up mechanisms to ensure that none suffers the concerned injuries, cancerous attacks, and other related complications. This is a medical procedure with critical provisions. Both parties should attend continuous medical checkups to unveil any developing health complication. When applied cautiously and optimally, interventional fluoroscopy constitutes one of the viable treatment procedures for numerous diseases and disorders (NCI, 2005).
References
Burgess, A., Jones, R., Morris, J. & Rout, J. (2003). An audit of radiographic reporting in a dental teaching hospital. Journal of Clinical Governance, 8(2), 156-157
Heary, A. D. (2005). Inhibitors to the use of secure messaging and online consultation in healthcare. Web.
Khalil, M. (2011). Basic sciences of nuclear medicine. Berlin: Springer.
Mayer, J., Sallis, J., Eckhardt, L. & Creech, L. (1997). Assessing children’s ultraviolet radiation exposure: The use of parental recall via telephone interviews. American Journal of Public Health, 87(6), 1046-9.
Miller, D., Balter, S, Wagner, L., Cardella, J. & Clark, T. (2005). Quality Improvement Guidelines for Recording Patient Radiation Dose in the Medical Record. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 1(1), 216-321.
NCI (National Cancer Institute). (2005). Interventional Fluoroscopy: Reducing Radiation Risks for Patients and Staff. Web.
Prokop, M., & Galanski, M. (2003). Spiral and multislice computed tomography of the body. Stuttgart: Thieme.
Romeijn, H., Ahuja, R., Dempsey, J. & Kumar, A. (2006). A new linear programming approach to radiation therapy treatment planning problems. Operations Research journal, 54(2), 201-16,402-404.
Schaefer-Prokop, C. (2011). Critical care radiology. Stuttgart: Thieme.
Suresh, V., Patricia,. T., John F. (2009). Quality Improvement Guidelines for the Treatment of Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis with Use of Endovascular Thrombus Removal Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 1(1), 25-47.
Thompson, M. (2012). Radiation Safety Precautions in the Management of the Hospitalized 131I Therapy Patient. Web.