Compliance with Radiation Safety Protocols in Libyan Hospital Imaging Departments: A Cross-Sectional Assessment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54361/LJMR.20.3.95Keywords:
Radiation safety, healthcare quality, compliance challenges, LibyaAbstract
Background: Radiation safety is a fundamental pillar of healthcare quality; however, compliance challenges vary across different regulatory environments. This multicenter cross-sectional study investigates the status of adherence to radiation safety protocols within medical imaging departments in Libyan hospitals and evaluates the subsequent impact on occupational safety. Method: Targeting a purposive sample of 68 radiology technicians across six major public hospitals in Zawia, Sorman, Sabratha, and Tripoli, data were collected using a structured and validated questionnaire covering training, administrative supervision, technical equipment status, and patient protection measures. Result: The findings reveal critical systemic gaps in the radiation protection framework. Statistical analysis indicates that 89.7% of X-ray units operate without periodic calibration, while 82.4% of departments lack regular quality control programs. Regarding professional competence, 70.6% of personnel had not received specialized periodic training, and a significant deficiency in patient protection was observed, with 64.7% of respondents reporting the absence of shielding for sensitive areas during exposure. These results correlate with a lack of administrative oversight, as 69.2% of departments operate without direct supervision from a radiation protection officer. Conclusion: The study concludes that the current state of radiation safety in the surveyed Libyan hospitals necessitates an urgent national regulatory strategy. Key recommendations center on mandatory equipment calibration, continuous professional education, and the empowerment of Radiation Protection Officers to ensure a safe environment for both healthcare workers and patients.
Downloads
References
1. Panchbhai AS. Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen and the discovery of X-rays: revisited after centennial. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol. 2015;27(3):390–
395.https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-1363.167119
2. Laal J. Innovation process in medical imaging. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2013;81:60–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.388
3. Al-Lamki L. Radiation exposure from medical imaging: a wake-up call for oman!. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal. 2011 Feb 12;11(1):1.
4. Cardarelli JJ, Ulsh BA. It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection. Dose-Response. 2018;16(3).https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325818779651
5. Calabrese EJ. The Mistaken Birth and Adoption of LNT: An Abridged Version. Dose-Response. 2017;15(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325817735478
6. Hendee WR, O’Connor MK. Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. Radiology. 2012;264(2):312–321.https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112678
7. Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(24):13761–13766. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2235592100
8. Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ, Bouffler SD, de Gonzalez AB. Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology. 2009;251(1):6–12.https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2511081686
9. Park MY, Jung SE. Patient dose management: focus on practical actions. J Korean Med Sci. 2016;31(Suppl 1):S45–S54.https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.S1.S45
10. European Society of Radiology, European Federation of Radiographer Societies (EFRS). Patient safety in medical imaging: a joint paper of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Federation of Radiographer Societies (EFRS). Insights Imaging. 2019;10(1):45.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0721-y
11. Malone J, Guleria R, Craven C, et al. Justification of diagnostic medical exposures: some practical issues. Report of an International Atomic Energy Agency consultation. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1013):523–538.https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/42893576
12. Vom J, Williams I. Justification of radiographic examinations: what are the key issues? J Med Radiat Sci. 2017;64(3):212–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.211
13. Ribeiro A, Husson O, Drey N, et al. Ionising radiation exposure from medical imaging – a review of patients’ (un)awareness. Radiography. 2020;26(2):E25–E30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2019.10.002
14. Furmaniak KZ, Kołodziejska MA, Szopiński KT. Radiation awareness among dentists, radiographers and students. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2016;45(8):20160097. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160097
15. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. 2007.https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20103
16. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Radiation protection and safety of radiation sources: international basic safety standards. GSR Part 3. Vienna: IAEA; 2014. https://www.iaea.org/publications/8930/radiation-protection-and-safety-of-radiation-sources-international-basic-safety-standards
17. Fiagbedzi E, Gorleku PN, Nyarko S, Asare A, Ndede GA. Assessment of radiation protection knowledge and practices among radiographers in the central region of Ghana. J Radiat Res Appl Sci. 2022;15(4):396–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmp.2022.06.001
18. Kharita MH, Khedr MS, Wannus KM. Survey of patient doses from conventional diagnostic radiographic examinations in Syria. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010;140(2):163–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq106
19. Health Canada. Safety procedures for the installation, use and control of X-ray equipment in large medical facilities. Safety Code 35. 2024 Jul.
20. Abuzaid MM, Elshami W, Shawki M, Salama D. Assessment of compliance to radiation safety and protection at the radiology department. Int J Radiat Res. 2019;17(3):439-446. https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.ijrr.17.3.439
21. Mohammed RH, Abdou NM, Farahat SA, Seif EM. Ionizing radiation hazards and protection practices among radiographers at Cairo University Hospitals. Cairo: Cairo University; 2017.
22. Khalilia WM. Evaluation of radiographers knowledge about radiation safety and cancer risks of ionizing radiation exposure. Am J Med Sci Pharm Res. 2025;7(1):6-14. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajmspr/Volume07Issue01-02
23. Juha EIE. Assessment of knowledge and practices of intensive care unit staff of radiation protection during portable radiography in the city of Bethlehem and East Jerusalem, Palestine [master's thesis]. Jerusalem: Al-Quds University; 2023.
24. Sharma BR, Singh S, Mandal S, Poudel N. Knowledge of radiation exposure and its risk among radiographers and radio technologists. J Gandaki Med Coll Nepal. 2019;12:17-22.https://doi.org/10.3126/jgmcn.v12i2.27152
25. Maharjan S, Parajuli K, Sah S, Poudel U. Knowledge of radiation protection among radiology professionals and students: a medical college-based study. Eur J Radiol Open.2020;7:100287.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2020.100287
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Libyan Journal of Medical Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 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.
https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/2413-6069
