Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Paediatric, Digital radiography, Dosimetry, Diagnostic procedure, Radiation safety, Education and training, Dosimetric comparison
A. Moran, S. McCoubrey, L. Bowden, D. Murphy, C. Saidlear; Dublin/IE
Methods and materials
Exposure factors and equipment technical parameters for all DR examinations,
across both sites,
closely followed the respective values that were recommended in the paper published by Knight et al  in conjunction with vendor recommendations.
Both sites carried out dose audits for a range of DR exams,
which included chest,
pelvis and skull procedures.
The age groups for each procedure were separated as followed,
0 – 4 weeks,
4 weeks – 1 year,
1 – 4 years,
4 – 10 years and 10 – 15 years.
Patient DAP values,
given in mGycm2,
were collated for each procedure and age category.
The 75th percentile of each sample size was taken as the local DRL for the respective procedure and age category,
as per recommended guidelines .
The resulting local DRLs were compared to aid both sites in the optimisation process.
the local DRLs for both sites were compared with the respective European DRLs established in RP 185 in order to verify if the DRLs for any the procedures need to be reduced in order to improve patient dose optimisation.