4.7 Article

British Association of MR Radiographers (BAMRR) Safety Survey 2005: Potential impact of European Union (EU) Physical Agents Directive (PAD) on Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages 1303-1307

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21154

Keywords

safety; occupational exposure; physical agents directive; electromagnetic field; MRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To measure the potential impact on clinical MRI practice in the UK of European Union (EU) Physical Agents Directive (PAD) on electromagnetic fields (EMF). There is evidence that the exposure limit values contained in the PAD will make it impossible for members of staff to stand close to the magnet during scanning; currently this is common practice in order to provide care and support for vulnerable patients. Interventional MR procedures will also be impossible. Materials and Methods: Members of the British Association of MR Radiographers (BAMRR) were sent a questionnaire to assess the impact of the PAD and related safety issues. Results: A total of 25% of responding sites have at least one sedation/general anesthesia (GA) session per week, while only 3% reported any interventional practice. A total of 29% of respondents reported that operators give a bolus injection by hand during contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) scans. Overall it is estimated that 3% of all MR examinations in the UK are performed with a staff member in the magnet room. Some of these examinations would be impossible without staff in the room and it would be necessary for patients to have computed tomography (CT) instead of MRI. The additional radiation dose of substituting CT for MRI is estimated at 224 mansievert per year. Conclusion: While the financial costs of implementing the PAD (EMF) are relatively low, the social costs are difficult to quantity but potentially more alarming.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available