Challenges for Radio-technologists at Radiology Departments in Libya
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54361/LJMR.16.2B.05Keywords:
Radiography, Challenges at radiography departments, Radio-technologists, Quality control management, radiation protective tools, Patient safety.Abstract
The radiology departments have enormous obstacles providing particular services to reach an acceptable level of patient satisfaction. There is several consideration regarding radiation-induced deterministic consequences on patients and medical professionals during radiology procedures. Among the various challenges posed are; the lack of quality assurance procedures, the use of incorrect techniques, and the improper or non-usage of radiation protective tools and increase workload are the main causes of deterministic injuries. The study aimed to assess and identify the critical problems and difficulties faced by radio technologists in specific Libyan hospitals. The study's target population was Libyan radiology technologists. A cross-sectional study was conducted. Where 95 questionnaires were distributed to the selected governmental hospitals and private clinics from March to May 2021. The collected data were analyzed using the Microsoft Word Excel program. According to the findings, the most frequent problems encountered by radiology technicians in hospitals are the absence of quality control tests (79 per cent), a lack of protective gear (57 per cent), working in an environment without adequate radiation protection (more than half), and a lack of A thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) devices (87 per cent). Our investigation of the radiology departments of Libyan hospitals revealed several issues and problems that have a detrimental impact on workflow and the quality of care and service delivery. The proper authorities should implement the necessary improvements.
Downloads
References
1. Pereira, A. G., Vergara, L. G. L., Merino, E. A. D., & Wagner, A. (2015). Solutions in radiology services management: a literature review. Radiologiabrasileira, 48(5), 298-304.
2. Mammas, I. N., & Spandidos, D. A. (2019). The perspectives and the challenges of Paediatric Radiology: An interview with Dr Georgia Papaioannou, Head of the Paediatric Radiology Department at the ‘Mitera’Children's Hospital in Athens, Greece. Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 18(4), 3238-3242.
3. Abushab, K. M., Suleiman, M. D., Alajerami, Y. S. M., Alagha, S. I., ALnahal, M., Najim, A., & Naser, M. (2018). Evaluation of advanced medical imaging services at Governmental Hospitals-Gaza Governorates, Palestine. Journal of radiation research and applied sciences, 11(1), 43-48.
4. Goyal, N., Jain, N., & Rachapalli, V. (2009). Ergonomics in radiology. Clinical radiology, 64(2), 119-126.
5. Craciun, H., Mankad, K., & Lynch, J. (2015). Risk management in radiology departments. World journal of radiology, 7(6), 134.
6. Salama, K. F., AlObireed, A., AlBagawi, M., AlSufayan, Y., & AlSerheed, M. (2016). Assessment of occupational radiation exposure among medical staff in health-care facilities in the Eastern Province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Indian Journal of occupational and Environmental medicine, 20(1), 21.
7. Ploussi, A., & Efstathopoulos, E. P. (2016). Importance of establishing radiation protection culture in radiology department. World journal of radiology, 8(2), 142.
8. Shakoor, M., Qureshi, M. R., Jadayil, W. A., Jaber, N., & Al-Nasra, M. (2021). Application of discrete event simulation for performance evaluation in private healthcare: The case of a radiology department. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 14(4), 1303-1310.
9. Ohagwu, A. O. C., & Njoku, J. (2010). Evaluation of personnel radiation monitoring in radiodiagnostic centers in South Eastern Nigeria. African Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 2(1-2), 49-53.
10. Rahman, N., Dhakam, S. H., Shafqut, A., Qadir, S., & Tipoo, F. A. (2008). Knowledge and practice of radiation safety among invasive cardiologists. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 58(3), 119.
11. Mojiri M, Moghimbeigi A. Awareness and attitude of radiographers towards radiation protection. J Paramed Sci. 2011;2(4):02–05
12. Singh, T. D., Jayaraman, T., & Sharma, B. A. (2016). Assessment of radiological protection systems among diagnostic radiology facilities in North East India. Journal of Radiological Protection, 37(1), 68.
13. FARZANEH, K., SHANDIZ, S., Vardian, M., Deevband, M. R., & Kardan, M. R. (2011). The quality control of diagnostic radiology devices in hospitals of Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 4(11), 1458-1459.
14. Adhikari KP, Jha LN, Galan MP. Status of radiation protection at different hospitals in Nepal. J Med Phys. 2012; 37:240–44.
15. Zer, S. S. A. Z. A., Khadoura, K. J., Yassin, S. S., & Al Agha, M. R. (2016). Ionizing radiation leakage in radio-diagnostic centers at Gaza Strip Hospitals, Palestine. Asian Review of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 3(1), 18-26.
16. Bari, D. S., Amin, P. M., & Abdulkareem, N. A. (2015). Measurement of the effective dose radiation at radiology departments of some hospitals in duhok governorate. Journal of Modern Physics, 6(05), 566.
17. Zer, S. S. A., Yassin, S. S., & Mohamed, R. Al Agha; Khalid Jamal Khadoura (2016). Radiation Protection.
18. Lynskey III, G. E., Powell, D. K., Dixon, R. G., & Silberzweig, J. E. (2013). Radiation protection in interventional radiology: survey results of attitudes and use. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 24(10), 1547-1551.
19. Oncology, 61(3), 304-310. Lorusso, A., Bruno, S., & L'abbate, N. (2007). Musculoskeletal complaints among Italian X-ray technologists. Industrial health, 45(5), 705-708.
20. Awosan, K. J., Ibrahim, M. T. O., Saidu, S. A., Ma’Aji, S. M., Danfulani, M., Yunusa, E. U., & Ige, T. A. (2016). Knowledge of radiation hazards, radiation protection practices and clinical profile of health workers in a teaching hospital in Northern Nigeria. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR, 10(8), LC07.
21. Vano, E., Kleiman, N. J., Duran, A., Rehani, M. M., Echeverri, D., & Cabrera, M. (2010). Radiation cataract risk in interventional cardiology personnel. Radiation research, 174(4), 490-495.
22. Mohan AK, Hauptmann M, Freedman DM, Ront E, Matanoski GM, Lubin JH, et al. Cancer and other causes of mortality among radiologic technologists in the United States. Int J Cancer. 2003;103(2):259–67.
23. Cioffi, D. L., Fontana, L., Leso, V., Dolce, P., Vitale, R., Vetrani, I., ... & Iavicoli, I. (2020). Low dose ionizing radiation exposure and risk of thyroid functional alterations in healthcare workers. European Journal of Radiology, 132, 109279.
24. Rostamzadeh, A., Farzizadeh, M., & Fatehi, D. (2015). Evaluation of the level of protection in Radiology Departments of Kermanshah, Iran. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics, 12(3), 200-208.
25. Ali, R. T., Hameed, S. M., & Ali, Q. A. (2016). Evaluation of Ionizing Radiation Protection among Radiation Workers in X-ray departments in Erbil City. Journal of the Faculty of Medicine Baghdad, 58(3), 208-212.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Rajab Ben Yousef , Kaothar Abuokraa, Eman Almhmoudi, Nada Hwiees, Marwan M ElMarmuri, Tasneem Alhrary, Khadija Abdaljawad (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Open Access Policy
Libyan journal of medical Research (LJMR).is an open journal, therefore there are no fees required for downloading any publication from the journal website by authors, readers, and institution.
The journal applies the license of CC BY (a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license). This license allows authors to keep ownership f the copyright of their papers. But this license permits any user to download , print out, extract, reuse, archive, and distribute the article, so long as appropriate credit is given to the authors and the source of the work.
The license ensures that the article will be available as widely as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific archive.
Editorial Policy
The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential model for Libyan journal of medical Research (LJMR). It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editorial, the peer reviewer and the publisher.
Any manuscript or substantial parts of it, submitted to the journal must not be under consideration by any other journal. In general, the manuscript should not have already been published in any journal or other citable form, although it may have been deposited on a preprint server. Authors are required to ensure that no material submitted as part of a manuscript infringes existing copyrights, or the rights of a third party.
Authorship Policy
The manuscript authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution and intellectual input to the research submitted to the journal, including design, performance, interpretation of the reported study, and writing the manuscript. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the manuscript but without intellectual input should only be recognized in the acknowledgements section of the manuscript. Also, one of the authors should be selected as the corresponding author to communicate with the journal and approve the final version of the manuscript for publication in the LJMR.
Peer-review Policy
- All the manuscripts submitted to LJMR will be subjected to the double-blinded peer-review process;
- The manuscript will be reviewed by two suitable experts in the respective subject area.
- Reports of all the reviewers will be considered while deciding on acceptance/revision or rejection of a manuscript.
- Editor-In-Chief will make the final decision, based on the reviewer’s comments.
- Editor-In-Chief can ask one or more advisory board members for their suggestions upon a manuscript, before making the final decision.
- Associate editor and review editors provide administrative support to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.
- In case, authors challenge the editor’s negative decision with suitable arguments, the manuscript can be sent to one more reviewer and the final decision will be made based upon his recommendations.
