Diagnostic Radiographers' Application of the Radiation Protection Principles of Justification, Optimisation and Dose Limits in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa
Wandile Witness Mkhonza, Shantel Lewis, Nicole Robyn BadriparsadABSTRACT
Introduction
The effective application of radiation protection principles is essential for minimising unnecessary radiation exposure and reducing associated risks to patients, personnel, and the public. This study investigated the application of radiation protection principles by diagnostic radiographers in Mpumalanga province, South Africa.
Methods
The quantitative cross‐sectional study employed stratified random sampling and an online questionnaire to collect data from diagnostic radiographers working in Mpumalanga hospitals. The data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
Results
The survey achieved a response rate of 85.6% ( n = 125, N = 146). Most participants (38.4%, n = 48) had 0–5 years of work experience. Referral forms often lacked sufficient clinical history (64.8%, n = 81), with diagnostic radiographers frequently supplementing by assessing the body region of concern (49.2%, n = 60). Lack of communication between radiologists and diagnostic radiographers was noted when referrals were incomplete (31.3%, n = 36) or when requested examinations did not correspond with the clinical history (32.8%, n = 38). Most participants (66.4%, n = 81) felt undervalued due to hierarchical structures. Most X‐ray rooms had functional warning lights (80%, n = 84). Full lead shields (98.1%, n = 102) were widely accessible, and lead goggles (33.7%, n = 34) were the least accessible. Although most participants were issued with personal radiation monitoring devices (97.1%, n = 99), only 53.5% ( n = 53) reported consistent use, and 33.3% ( n = 32) received radiation dose readings.
Conclusion
The application of radiation protection principles was inconsistent. Justification was achieved through referral assessment but was compromised by systemic barriers. Optimisation demonstrated suitable room designs but was limited by resource accessibility. Dose limitation was hindered by device usage and feedback despite high issuance.