| Summary: | The aim of the search was to compare the sources of information and evaluate dynamics of changes of the patients doses during x-ray and radionuclide examinations in medical organizations in Moscow from 2017 to 2020. Material and methods: Reporting forms № 3-DOZ, № 30 and Radiation-Hygienic Passport for 2017–2020 from Moscow organizations of different forms of ownership were collected and analyzed. The analysis was performed of the main indicators that determine the radiation safety in medical exposure: the number of medical organizations operating sources of ionizing radiation, the equipment of radiation diagnostics, the structure of radiation diagnostics and collective doses from medical exposure. Results: The analysis of trends of the development of radiation diagnostics in Moscow presented in the paper shows that the number of organizations operating ionizing radiation sources is increasing every year; the number of computed tomography scanners is growing by an average of 10% per year, and there is approximately the same increase in the number of computed tomography examinations. Therefore, in 2017-2019 the annual increase in the number of examinations was 10%; it was 30% in 2019–2020, which is associated with the epidemic of the new coronavirus infection COVID-19. The increase in the collective dose from medical exposure corresponds to the increase in the number of X-ray examinations. Comparison of the considered reporting forms and data from the unified X-ray information system shows that all reporting forms have their advantages and disadvantages, which are discussed in detail in the paper. For a comprehensive assessment of the condition of radiation diagnostics, it is necessary to compile data from different statistical reporting forms, which negatively affects the reliability and representativeness of the data. It should be noted that all the considered statistical reporting forms provide no data on individual and accumulated patients doses, as well as standard (typical) doses for the equipment of X-ray and radionuclide diagnostics. The existing procedure of data collection does not allow to receive and analyze the data online. Conclusion: Among the analyzed statistical reporting forms, there is no one that fully provides the tasks of the current assessment of the situation and operational management of public radiation doses. Some of the data in fact duplicate each other, and the existing discrepancies are more likely express difficulties in collecting and summarizing information than differences in reporting forms. Current statistical reporting forms require revision, consolidation, clarification and automation of data collection processes. Further implementation of electronic systems for recording and controlling patients doses, and generation monitoring and reporting systems, as well as interdepartmental interaction systems and the creation of an electronic office of organizations will reduce the rate of non-submission of reporting documentation. That makes it more objective and provides all the data necessary to optimize radiation protection of patients.
|
|---|