Final Patient Shielding Guidance.r1

Guidance on using shielding on
patients for diagnostic radiology

applications
Guidance on using shielding on patients for diagnostic radiology applications
Guidance on using shielding on patients for diagnostic radiology

applications
A joint report of the British Institute of Radiology (BIR), Institute of Physics and Engineering
in Medicine (IPEM), Public Health England (PHE), Royal College of Radiologists (RCR), Society
and College of Radiographers (SCoR) and the Society for Radiological Protection (SRP).
Working Party Members

Peter Hiles, BIR (Chair) Yvonne Sullivan, PHE
Elizabeth Benson, BIR Guy Hickson, RCR
Helen Hughes, BIR Phil Cosson, SCoR
Rob Loader, IPEM Lynda Johnson, SCoR
Dan Shaw, IPEM David Dommett, SRP
Sue Edyvean, PHE
For queries relating to this document, please contact [email protected].
About The British Institute of Radiology

The British Institute of Radiology is an international membership organisation for everyone
working in imaging, radiation oncology and the underlying sciences.
Our aims are to:
 support the work of our members and their colleagues to achieve professional
excellence
 provide continuing professional development for our multidisciplinary community
 publish cutting-edge research for our authors and readers across the world
 influence and connect with the wider professional sector.
Published by the British Institute of Radiology. This is an open access publication distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are credited.
British Institute of Radiology

48–50 St John Street
London
EC1M 4DG
Tel: 020 3668 2220
www.bir.org.uk
Published March 2020

BIR Registered charity number 215869
2
Contents
Executive summary 5
1. Introduction 6
1.1 Background
1.2 Scope
1.3 Aim
2. General requirements for patient contact shielding 8
2.1 Radiation safety culture
2.2 Context for applying shielding
2.3 Medical device and product marking
2.4 Recommendations for local practice
3. Radiation dose and risk 12
3.1 Historical perspective
3.2 Stochastic and hereditary risk
3.3 Introduction to levels of risk
3.4 Optimisation and applying the ALARP principle
4. Sources of radiation exposure 21
4.1 Primary radiation
4.2 Secondary radiation
4.3 Summary
5. Operator responsibilities 31
5.1 Overview
5.2 Communication
5.3 Consent
5.4 Patient complaints and duty of candour
5.5 Summary
6. Clinical service requirements for patient shielding 38
6.1 Overview
6.2 Priorities in imaging
6.3 Training
6.4 Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
6.5 Procurement, storage and maintenance of patient contact shields
6.6 Applying patient contact shielding
6.7 Leadership
6.8 Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)
6.9 Repeat exposures
6.10 Summary
7. Shielding in general radiography 45
7.1 Organs at risk
7.2 The anatomy and concept behind shield application
3
7.3 In-beam protection (Primary beam)

7.4 Outside beam protection
7.5 Influence of shielding on equipment function and image quality
7.6 Special patient groups
8. Shielding in diagnostic and interventional fluoroscopy 50
8.1 Organs at risk
8.3 Influence of shielding on equipment function
9. Shielding in CT 54
9.1 Organs at risk
9.3 In-beam protection (Primary beam)
10. Shielding in mammography 78
11. Shielding in dental radiography 80
11.1 Organs at risk
11.2 The anatomy and ideas behind shield application
11.3 In-beam protection (primary beam)
12. Glossary 86
4
Executive summary
Over the last 70 years or so, it has been a common practice amongst radiological
professionals to place radiation protective material directly on the surface of a patient
during radiodiagnostic procedures to help reduce the dose to critical organs. This has led to
the expectation amongst patients and professionals alike that this would continue.
However, an increasing number of studies have raised concerns regarding the efficacy and
effectiveness of such ‘contact shielding’. This has led to an inconsistency in application and,
in some cases, friction between patients demanding shielding and professionals judging it is
unnecessary or even potentially harmful.
Therefore a working party consisting of representatives from various UK radiological

professional bodies was established to consider the evidence-base for patient contact
shielding and produce a consensus of opinion as to what constitutes best and agreed
practice, with the aim of improving consistency in application of such shielding.
This work challenges the historical perspective that using contact shielding only provides a
benefit for the patient. Rather it suggests that contact shielding can adversely interfere with
the imaging (leading to a repeat test) and, if misplaced or allowed to move during an
examination, can actually lead to increased patient radiation exposure, rather than the
reverse. Overall, the findings suggest that contact shielding provides minimal or no benefit
and professionals should concentrate on other areas of radiation protection which are more
effective in optimising the patient radiation exposure.
The recommended cessation of the widespread practice of applying patient contact

shielding requires a major cultural change in outlook regarding radiation safety and practice
amongst medical professionals, educators, regulators and the public alike. The adoption of
these guidelines into clinical practice will therefore also require a suitable education
programme which could incorporate some of the material provided here.
5
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The use of shielding, generally in the form of lead rubber, applied directly to patients has
been practised for many years to reduce the dose to critical organs, notably the gonads.
However, some studies have questioned the efficacy of using such shielding,1,2,3 while
others have highlighted the inconsistencies in application.4 These self-same studies have
called for national guidance to help reduce variations in approach. In addition, new designs,
applications and materials for patient contact protection have appeared on the market.5
Therefore a working party consisting of representatives from various UK radiological
professional bodies was established to consider the evidence-base for patient shielding and
produce a consensus of opinion as to what constitutes best and agreed practice, with the
aim of improving consistency in application of such shielding.
1.2 Scope
This guidance is intended to cover radiation protection applied directly to patients

undergoing diagnostic and interventional X-ray procedures within the healthcare sector,
hereafter referred to as patient contact shielding. It does not include shielding built into the
imaging equipment or in the room design and excludes ad hoc protection not actually
placed on the patient (e.g. the use of shielding on incubators in neonatal intensive care
units, as it does not touch the baby).
1.3 Aim
The aim of this document is to provide general guidance on why patient contact shielding
may be required and when and where it might be used, with the intention of reducing
confusion and improving consistency in practice across the UK. The number of X-ray
procedures is vast, thus providing advice for each examination and individual projection
would be problematic. Therefore the approach taken is to provide generalised reasons and
evidence (where available) for why protection may or may not be applicable.
The overriding consideration throughout this guidance is the patient’s needs, both in terms
of risk reduction and reassurance. The guidance therefore starts by addressing what levels
of risk might be involved, the place of shielding within an imaging task, and what sources of
radiation require attenuating. The area of staff/patient interaction, including the patient’s
expectations and staff concerns regarding physically applying shielding to a person, is also
addressed (see chapters 5 and 6). This is followed by several chapters describing how these
issues relate to specific imaging modalities. These have been designed to be read by those
6
who may only be interested in an individual modality and so they intentionally include some
repetition of text.
In order to provide a clear way forward, recommendations for local practice are provided at
the end of each chapter, along with the relevant evidence (references).
References
1. Fawcett SL, Gomez AC, Barter SJ, Ditchfield M and Set P. More harm than good? The
anatomy of misguided shielding of the ovaries. Br. J. Radiol. 2012; 85: e442–e447.
2. Marsh RM and Silosky M. Patient shielding in diagnostic imaging: discontinuing a
legacy practice. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2019; 212:1–3.
3. McKenney S, Gingold E and Zaidi H. Point/Counterpoint: Gonad shielding should be
discontinued for most diagnostic imaging exams. Med. Phys. 2019; 46(3), 1111–
1114.
4. Hayre CM, Blackman S, Carlton K and Eyden A. Attitudes and perceptions of
radiographers applying lead (Pb) protection in general radiography: An ethnographic
study. Radiography 2018; 24: e13–e18.
5. AAPM, 2017. Position statement on the use of Bismuth shielding for the purpose of
dose reduction in CT scanning. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Policy
Number PP 26-B. https://www.aapm.org/publicgeneral/BismuthShielding.pdf
[Accessed 29.10.2019].
7
Chapter 2 General requirements for patient contact shielding
2.1 Radiation safety culture
In the UK, the exposure of patients is governed by the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure)
Regulations,1,2 IR(ME)R. These regulations encapsulate the fundamental radiation safety
principle of keeping patients doses ‘as low as reasonably practicable’, or ALARP.3
In general terms this is achieved by:
 First, ensuring practitioners and operators are suitably trained, entitled and
competent.
 Second, requiring each individual X-ray examination to be ‘justified’, meaning the
benefits outweigh the risks of the exposure. Justification involves making sure the
most appropriate examination takes place, including considering other imaging
modalities which do not involve ionising radiation.
 Third, requiring the exposure to be ‘optimised’, to ensure that patient doses arising
from the exposure are kept as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) consistent with
the intended purpose. This includes both exposure parameters and equipment
maintenance.
In applying these principles to the area of patient protection it is important to recognise that
optimisation of protection is not about minimising radiation dose, but rather balancing
detriments and benefits.4 It therefore involves managing the patient dose in line with the
intended medical purpose. For example, applying protection to reduce the dose while
increasing the risk of obscuring important diagnostic information is contrary to good
medical practice and is not sound radiological protection.
2.2 Context for applying shielding
It is important that the application of patient contact shielding, if required, should only take
place once all other dose reduction techniques (e.g. selection of exposure factors,
collimation) have been applied.
It is often assumed that shielding always improves patient safety, but this is not necessarily
the case. The use of shielding in diagnostic imaging should be guided by the supporting
evidence and the focus should be on what is safest for the patient. This guidance aims to
illustrate best practice and provides the scientific evidence to enable IR(ME)R1,2 operators
(e.g. radiographers, radiologists, dentists, radiology assistant practitioners) to communicate
with patients and those who care for them to provide adequate information in order to
reach agreement on the appropriate use of shielding. Every individual has a right to request
or refuse shielding and should be supported to make their own decision.5
8
While any dose reduction is desirable, in the context of the low levels of dose from
diagnostic radiology, other factors must be considered as strong influences on the decision
to use or withhold shielding. These are considered throughout this document. For example:
psychological factors such as whether it is a reassuring or alarming process to use a shield;
accuracy of imaging relating to the proximity of the shield to the imaged area; and practical
and comfort issues such as the position and weight of the shielding.
Appropriately trained staff with the knowledge and skills to listen as well as provide
adequate information should facilitate all discussions around the use of patient contact
shielding. Where appropriate, for example if the individual is particularly anxious or requires
additional reassurance, operators should take time to explain the function of shielding as
part of a multifactorial and overarching dose reduction strategy. The priority remains to
achieve a suitable diagnostic image, where benefit outweighs risk. If the patient/individual
chooses a course of action that might increase their risk in terms of radiation dose, it is the
operator’s responsibility to take action to prevent harm. Each decision to use shielding
should be relevant to the individual circumstances.
2.3 Medical Device and product marking
Patient contact shielding devices should be available, where appropriate, and may include
proprietary gonad shields and aprons and various in-house modified lead-rubber shapes. If
they are to be procured they require suitable marking (such as CE6) to indicate that the
manufacturer has declared that these products conform to the relevant safety, health or
environmental requirements. By this means the manufacturer is confirming that the product
is suitable to be sold throughout the specified market. At the time of writing (February
2020), the UK and EU are negotiating product safety marking.7
Users should be aware that if an item is placed on the market with the intention of placing it
on a patient to protect them from radiation then it is a medical device 8 and should be
marked as such. This includes gonad, eye, thyroid and breast protective products. The
manufacturer of such products will provide appropriate operating instructions, including
details of the maintenance requirements and when it should be used9.
If, however, an item is placed on the market with the intention of using it for occupational
protection and as a patient shield, then it is both a medical device and personal protective
equipment (PPE).8 This could include “half-aprons” and dental aprons. In such cases the
product should be marked as a medical device. The manufacturer must also fulfil the
relevant requirements for the production of personal protective equipment.
In the case of shielding designed in-house for a particular application then, provided it is not
then transferred or sold as a product, it is not currently classed as a medical device with
9
regard to the legislation and controls8. It will apply from 26 May 2020 when the new device
regulations apply in full.10,11
The overall conclusion from the available evidence is that patient contact shielding is not
generally required in diagnostic and interventional radiology. The fundamental reason
being to protect the patient, given that the use of patient contact shielding can often
actually lead to an increase in patient dose (due to the need to repeat an examination or
interference with automatic dose control systems). Even outside the primary radiation
beam, efforts spent on correct positioning and optimising protocol parameters can lead to
dose savings which are more significant than applying patient contact shielding. This overall
conclusion is in line with the recent American Association of Physicists in Medicine position
statement regarding gonad and fetal shielding.12
Few exceptions have been identified, but these may occur where a particular patient care
pathway requires a number of repeat examinations where patient contact shielding may be
applied, particularly in the case of paediatric patients.
The recommended cessation of the widespread practice of applying patient contact

shielding requires a major cultural change in outlook regarding radiation safety and practice
amongst medical professionals, educators, regulators and the public alike. The adoption of
these guidelines into clinical practice will therefore also require a suitable education
programme which could incorporate some of the material provided here.
Scenario Recommendation Comments
Patient contact shielding in Not recommended Anticipate very few specific

diagnostic and situations where this does
interventional radiology not apply.
References
1. UK Government, 2017. The Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2017

(No. 1322).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1322/pdfs/uksi_20171322_en.pdf
[Accessed 29.10.2019].
2. UK Government, 2018. The Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations
(Northern Ireland) 2018. Statutory Instrument 2018 No. 17.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2018/17/contents/made [Accessed 29.10.2019].
10
3. European ALARA Network. Optimization of Radiation Protection. ALARA: A Practical

Guidebook 2019. https://www.eu-alara.net/index.php/activities/documents-related-
to-alara/330-optimization-of-radiological-protection-alara-a-practical-
guidebook.html [Accessed 29.10.2019].
4. ICRP, 2013. Radiological protection in paediatric diagnostic and interventional
radiology. International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 121.
Ann. ICRP 42(2) (2013).
5. The Society and College of Radiographers, 2018. Obtaining consent: a clinical
guideline for the diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy workforce.
https://www.sor.org/sites/default/files/document-
versions/obtaining_consent_170118.pdf [Accessed 05.10.2018].
6. UK Government Guidance 2019a. CE marking. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ce-
marking [Accessed 07.01.2020].
7. UK Government Guidance 2019b. Prepare to use the UKCA mark after Brexit.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/prepare-to-use-the-ukca-mark-after-brexit [Accessed
07.02.2020].
8. MHRA, 2014. Borderlines with Medical Devices. Medicine and Healthcare Products
Regulator Agency, Guidance on legislation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/borderlines-with-medical-devices
[Accessed 29.10.2019].
9. HSE, 2014. Safe Use of Work Equipment. Provision and Use of Work Equipment
Regulations 1998. Health and Safety Executive, Approved Code of Practice and
Guidance L22, 4th Edition (2014). http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l22.htm
[Accessed 29.10.2019].
10. MHRA, Guidance; Medical devices: EU regulations for MDR and IVDR – Health
Institutions and the Regulations. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/medical-devices-eu-
regulations-for-mdr-and-ivdr#health-institutions-and-the-regulations [Accessed
11.03.2020].
11. b: MHRA: Closed consultation - Health institution exemption for IVDR/MDR.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/health-institution-exemption-for-
ivdrmdr [Accessed 11.03.2020].
12. AAPM 2019. Position statement on the use of patient gonadal and fetal shielding.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Policy number PP 32-A.
https://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?id=468&type=PP&current=true
[Accessed 29.10.2019].
11
Chapter 3 Radiation dose and risk
3.1 Historical perspective
Past practice in radiation protection has been based on the dose range and associated risk
estimates prevalent at the time. However, the levels of dose and estimates of risk have
changed over the years (e.g. since some operators qualified), requiring continuous revision
of local practice in-line with current knowledge and advice. For example, in the UK the mean
entrance surface dose for an AP pelvis radiograph (where gonad protection may be
considered) dropped by a factor of 10 between 1900 and 1958 1,2 and then by a further
factor of 6 by 20103, see Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Example change in mean entrance surface dose values with time for an AP Pelvis
radiograph. Based on doses reported in the literature.1 ,2, 3
3.1.1 Organs at risk (OAR)

Knowledge of the radiosensitivity of various tissues and organs has also changed with time
as new information and evidence became available. For example, the tissue weighting factor
(WT), is a relative measure of the risk of stochastic effects (see section 3.2) that might result
from irradiation of that specific tissue. Table 3.1 summarises the tissue weighting factors
recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) over a
thirty year period.4,5,6
12
Table 3.1 Changes in the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)

recommended tissue weighting factors with tissue/organ and time
Tissue or ICRP recommended tissue weighting factor (wT)
organ
(in order of ICRP 26 ICRP 60 ICRP 103
wT) (1977) 4 (1990) 5 (2007)6
Bone marrow 0.12 0.12 0.12
(red)
Breast 0.15 0.05 0.12
Colon 0.12 0.12
Lung 0.12 0.12 0.12
Stomach 0.12 0.12
Gonads 0.25 0.20 0.08
Bladder 0.05 0.04
Liver 0.05 0.04
Oesophagus 0.05 0.04
Thyroid 0.03 0.05 0.04
Bone surface 0.03 0.01 0.01
Brain 0.01
Salivary glands 0.01
Skin 0.01 0.01
Sub Total 0.70 0.95 0.88
Remainder 0.30 0.05 0.12

tissues*
Total 1.00 1.00 1.00
* From ICRP 1036, remainder tissues are mean doses to adrenals, extrathoracic (ET) region,
gall bladder, heart, kidneys, lymphatic nodes, muscle, oral mucosa, pancreas, prostate
(male), small intestine, spleen, thymus, uterus/cervix (female)
13
Organs such as colon and stomach have been given specific weighting factors in recent
years, but of particular importance for these guidelines are the significant changes in w T for
the gonads and breast tissue (see Figure 3.2). These figures would suggest that dose
optimisation processes should concentrate on those organs with the highest wT and much
less on those with a low wT, such as the gonads. The latest wT figures in Table 3.1 suggest
contributions from just five organs (bone marrow, breast, colon, lung and stomach) make up
60% of the total risk.
Figure 3.2 Tissue weighting factor versus year of recommendation by the ICRP for two
particular tissue types.4, 5, 6
3.1.2 Heritable effects

Information on hereditary (or genetic) effects of radiation was developed almost entirely
from animal experiments in the 1950s. This gave rise to considerable interest in measuring
gonad doses (e.g. the Committee on Radiological Hazards to Patients set up in 1956 under
the chairmanship of Lord Adrian2) and the introduction of gonad shielding methods during
the next few decades. However, more recently genetic risk estimations in human
populations have concluded that there is no direct evidence of a radiation associated excess
of heritable disease.6 This change in emphasis is illustrated in Figure 3.3 where the decrease
in estimated genetic risk has led directly to the significant reduction in the tissue weighting
factor for the gonads from 0.2 to 0.08 (see also Table 3.1).
14
Figure 3.3. Illustrating how, over the past half century, the concern regarding exposure to
ionising radiation has changed from heritable (genetic) effects to carcinogenesis. [Used with
permission from Hall 2009.7]
The effects and risks from exposure to ionising radiation depend upon many factors, such as
the absorbed dose, the dose rate, quality of radiation, specifics of the tissue irradiated and
other factors such as the age and sex of the individual. The hereditary risks from irradiation
that might result in effects to offspring of humans appear to be much lower than the
stochastic effect of cancer induction and are now so low they are rarely considered.
Therefore carcinogenesis is currently considered the most important stochastic effect at
absorbed doses of less than 1 Gy. The risk of cancer induction varies widely across different
tissues; however, the risk of fatal radiation-induced cancer for a general population
following chronic exposure6 is about 5% Sv−1. Due to difficulties in obtaining accurate
evidence, quantification of cancer risk at doses of less than 0.1 Gy remains problematic.8
3.1.3 Eye lens risk

For a long time the lens of the eye has been regarded as radiosensitive in a deterministic
manner and therefore requires a threshold radiation dose to be exceeded before lens
opacities will develop. In recent years, a number of new studies have suggested an elevated
risk for cataract development in populations exposed to doses of ionising radiation below
the previously assumed thresholds.9 Deterministic thresholds for the lens of the eye
(radiation induced cataract) are now considered to be 0.5 Gy,6,9,10 with some authors raising
the possibility of no threshold at all.11 The particular form of cataract associated with
15
ionising radiation is Posterior Subcapsular Cataract (PSC). Therefore minimising the eye lens
dose remains an important consideration in radiation protection.
3.2 Stochastic and hereditary risk
Radiation effects are divided into the categories of stochastic effects, tissue effects
(deterministic) and genetic effects. At dose levels commonly found in diagnostic radiology,
the overwhelming effect in both adult and paediatric patients is believed to be an increased
incidence and associated mortality from stochastic effects.12 Heritable effects to offspring
can be considered a negligible risk for the expected gonad doses associated with diagnostic
radiology (including CT).6
The significance of these radiation effects is dependent on the biological sex and age of the
patient at the time of the exposure and generally the younger the patient the more
important the effect is. The increased risk for a given dose for younger age groups reflects
the increased radiation organ sensitivity during development and the longer life expectancy
of the child, during which time a cancer can become established and develop.
Cancer incidence also varies considerably between the different organs, with the female
breast being the most radiosensitive at birth and the thyroid and female breast showing the
greatest decrease in radiosensitivity with age (see Figure 3.4).
Figure 3.4 Lifetime risk of cancer incidence by organ and age for a composite Euro-American
female population (% per Gy) (data from the Health Protection Agency 2011.13)
16
3.3 Introduction to levels of risk
In order to help prioritise dose reduction techniques, such as the use of patient contact
shielding, it may be useful to consider a general scale of risk related to radiation dose, such
as that provided in Table 3.2. Although the tabulated radiation dose is related to effective
(whole body) dose, whereas patient shielding is used to minimise individual organ doses,
the risk levels and descriptions are nevertheless a useful general guide. For instance, where
the estimated examination dose is already in the ‘negligible’ risk category, then to provide
shielding which halves the dose will have little, if any, effect on the overall risk to the patient
and would suggest optimisation efforts would be better employed elsewhere.
Table 3.2 Lifetime cancer induction risk categorisation for medical exposures, based on
Martin et al.14
Effective dose Lifetime cancer Risk description Example radiological
(mSv) induction risk procedure
<0.1 <1 in 1 million Negligible Radiographs: Chest, Limbs,

shoulder, teeth
0.1 to 1.0 <1 in 100,000 Minimal Radiographs: Head, neck,

spine, abdomen, pelvis
1.0 to 10 <1 in 10,000 Very low Fluoroscopy contrast studies;

CT Head; CT thorax, abdomen
and pelvis; cardiac
angiography; interventional
radiology
10 to 100 <1 in 1,000 Low CT thorax, abdomen and

pelvis; Interventional radiology
≥100s <1 in 100 Moderate Multiple procedures
3.3.1 Paediatric risk

The increased risk due to the age of paediatric patients must be considered and therefore
there is necessarily a higher emphasis on protecting radiosensitive organs (for example the
paediatric female breast) due to the increased radio-sensitivity of the developing breast
tissue. The cancer risk drops markedly as the age of the population increases. To illustrate
this, at the age of 5 it has been estimated that approximately 9 breast cancers per mGy of
absorbed dose would be induced if 100,000 patients were exposed. For a 40 year old female
this drops to approximately 1 radiation induced breast cancer per 100,000.15
17
3.4 Optimisation and applying the ALARP principle
How are we to balance risk and benefit and how far do we go to achieve ALARP? It is not
just about aiming for radiation doses ‘as low as’ conceivably possible, but keeping in mind
the idea of ‘reasonably practicable’.16
Some useful advice regarding ALARP has been provided by the Health and Safety
Executive,17 who suggest that ALARP does not mean that every measure that could possibly
be taken (however theoretical) to reduce risk must be taken and it does not represent zero
risk. The risk from an activity can never be entirely eliminated unless the activity is stopped.
Applying the ALARP principle is dependent upon the exercising of professional judgement
and experience, as well as following any consensus on ‘good practice’ established by
stakeholders. In addition, decisions about what is ALARP should be affected by changes in
knowledge about the size or nature of the risk presented by a hazard. If the evidence shows
the hazard presents a significantly lower risk than previously thought, then a relaxation in
controls may be accepted provided the new arrangements ensure the risks are ALARP.
Therefore, the process of applying optimisation and ALARP in diagnostic radiology should
concentrate on minimising the primary beam dose and prioritising protection for the ‘high
risk’ organs mentioned in sections 3.1 and 3.2. In the context of applying surface shielding
this includes the eye lens and breast tissue (and thyroid in paediatric patients). However,
primary beam shielding has the potential to increase dose when using automatic exposure
controls and risks obscuring pathology and adversely affecting clinical findings, potentially
leading to repeat exposures.
These considerations should guide clinical practice. For example, in comparing AP and PA
projections for abdominal radiography,18 the anatomically anterior positioning of the
stomach, colon and liver mean they would receive higher organ doses in an AP projection
than a PA projection and thus make a greater contribution to effective dose. Similarly, in the
selection of tube potential (kV) or filtration for a radiographic examination, increasing the
kV will give more penetrating radiation, lowering the dose to more superficial tissues, while
the effect on doses to tissues deep within the body near to the image receptor will be
minor.19
The decision regarding whether any further dose reduction (e.g. from secondary radiation)
is necessary, should take into account the levels of risk highlighted in section 3.3. It is
suggested that if the dose has been reduced to the ‘negligible’ risk level, no further action
need be taken to satisfy ALARP.
Other considerations which might influence the optimisation process could include cases
where a patient is likely to undergo multiple or sequential examinations.
18
References
1. Kotre CJ and Little BG. Patient and staff radiation doses from early radiological
examinations (1899-1902). Br. J. Radiol. 2006; 70: 837–842.
2. Adrian, 1966. Final report of the Adrian Committee on Radiological hazards to
patients. London, HMSO. https://archive.org/details/op1269041-1001/page/n1
[Accessed 29.10.2019].
3. HPA, 2012. Doses to patients from radiographic and fluoroscopic X-ray imaging
procedures in the UK – 2010 review. Health Protection Agency Report HPA-CRCE-
034. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/radiographic-and-fluoroscopic-
X-rays-patient-doses [Accessed 29.10.2019].
4. ICRP, 1977. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection. ICRP Publication 26. Ann. ICRP 1 (3).
5. ICRP, 1991. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ann. ICRP 21 (1–3).
6. ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37 (2–4).
7. Hall EJ. Is there a place for quantitative risk assessment? J. Radiol. Prot. 2009; 29:
A171–A184.
8. Ross JC, Vilić D and Fongenie B. Reforming the debate around radiation risk. J. Radiol.
Prot. 2019; 39: 635–640.
9. ICRP, 2012. ICRP statement on tissue reactions and early and late effects of radiation
in normal tissue and organs – threshold doses for tissue reactions in radiation
protection context. International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication
118. Ann. ICRP 41 (1–2).
10. ICRP Statement on Tissue Reactions. ICRP reference 4825-3093-1464. Commission
Approved Statement 21.4.2011. http://www.icrp.org/docs/2011%20Seoul.pdf
[Accessed 22.07.2019].
11. Michel M, Jacob S, Roger G, Pelosse B, Laurier D, Le Pointe HD and Bernier MO. Eye
lens radiation exposure and repeated head CT scans: A problem to keep in mind. Eur.
J. Radiol. 2012; 81(8): 1896–900.
12. IAEA, 2013. Dosimetry in diagnostic radiology for paediatric patients. International
Atomic Energy Agency, Human Health Series No. 24. https://www-
pub.iaea.org/books/iaeabooks/8965/dosimetry-in-diagnostic-radiology-for-
paediatric-patients [Accessed 29.10.2019].
13. HPA, 2011. Radiation risks from medical X-ray examinations as a function of age and
sex of the patient. Health Protection Agency Report HPA-CRCE-028.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/medical-x-rays-radiation-risks-by-
age-and-sex-of-patient [Accessed 29.10.2019].
14. Martin CJ, Vassileva J, Vano E, Mahesh M, Ebdon-Jackson SE, Ng KH, Frush DP, Loose
R and Damilakis J. Unintended and accidental medical radiation exposures in
radiology: guidelines on investigation and prevention. J. Radiol. Prot. 2017; 37: 883–
906.
14. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2.
Washington, DC: National Research Council; 2006. Report No.: 978-0-309-09156-5
19
15. Coates R. International Radiation Protection Association, President’s Blog. IRPA,

Bulletin 20 (December 2018). http://www.irpa.net/page.asp?id=54592 [Accessed
29.10.2019].
16. HSE, 2018. ALARP “at a glance”. Health and Safety Executive web-based guidance.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm [Accessed 18.11.2018]
17. Martin CJ, Sutton DG and Sharp PF. Balancing patient dose and image quality. Appl.
Radiat. Isot. 1999; 50: 1–19.
18. Martin CJ and Sutton DG. Practical Radiation Protection in Healthcare. 2 nd edition
(2014). Oxford University Press: Oxford.
20
Chapter 4 Sources of radiation exposure
Effective use of protective equipment requires a clear understanding of the sources of

ionising radiation that a patient is exposed to while undergoing a radiological investigation.
These sources include the primary beam and secondary radiation from several sources.
Knowledge of the relative intensity of each of these sources should guide radiation
protection practice. There has been confusion evident in the literature concerning the
terminology, generation process, and relative intensity of some of these sources of
secondary radiation. This chapter aims to provide the current knowledge available to help
guide protection practice for all professional groups engaged in the examination of patients.
4.1 Primary radiation
This is the radiation emitted from the X-ray tube in the intended field of irradiation. Dose
rates within the primary beam can be relatively high. There are broadly three categories of
dose rate commonly delivered to the surface of the patient as primary radiation in
radiological examinations. One is between 1 and 10 mGy s-1 and would include fluoroscopic
exposures. The second category typically ranges between 15 and 25 mGy s -1 and would
include projection radiographs, dental examinations, angiographic acquisitions,
fluorography acquisitions and mammograms. The third can deliver 50 to 100 mGy s -1 and is
exclusively for computed tomography (CT) examinations. These dose rates are at least fifty
times the dose rate from even the most significant source of secondary radiation, it is
therefore extremely important to limit the area of the primary beam.
4.1.1 Collimation
The size of the primary beam is controlled by means of a collimation system. An example of
the effectiveness of the collimators in general radiography is given in Figure 4.1, which
demonstrates the steep decline in radiation output close to the collimator edge. The insert
in this figure illustrates the low output levels measured outside of the collimated region, in
this case dropping to less than 1% of the primary beam output within approximately 25 mm.
Therefore efficient use of collimators is a significant contributor to optimisation of patient
dose.
Operators must include all anatomy and pathology indicated by the examination protocol.
Ensuring this is achieved in just a single exposure is a skilled task. Inadequate collimation
(use of large field sizes, or too small a field size requiring a repeated exposure) has been
shown to be a major cause of increased risk to patients, especially children and
neonates.1,2,3 There is a fine balance between adequate visualisation of anatomy and
pathology on the one hand and beam size limitation for radiation protection purposes on
the other.
21
Figure 4.1 An example of the change in radiation output with distance from the centre of the
X-ray beam for a conventional radiographic X-ray tube, in the directions parallel to and
perpendicular to the X-ray tube Anode Cathode (A/C) axis. The collimated X-ray beam edge
in this example is within 3 mm of the light beam edge, as shown. The insert highlights the
response close to the field edge, where the radiation output falls to less than 1% within 25
mm.
4.2 Secondary radiation
All other sources of radiation within the X-ray room are termed secondary radiation. Figure
4.2 highlights secondary sources of radiation for a projection radiography situation, namely
tube leakage, extra focal radiation and several sources of scattered radiation. These
secondary sources are also present in other modalities, such as CT and fluoroscopy.
Patients may be completely unaware of these sources. Conversely, they may be

unnecessarily anxious about the risks posed by them. Therefore, the absence of measures to
protect against them may need to be explained.
22
Figure 4.2 Secondary sources of radiation present during projection radiography.
4.2.1 Tube housing radiation leakage

Leakage radiation is the term given to radiation escaping the X-ray tube housing other than
through the tube port. This must be limited to less than 1 mGy hr-1 averaged over an area of
1 m2 at a distance of 1 metre from the focal spot.4 In practice, the dose rate from leakage
radiation in a properly designed and maintained system5 will be less than 0.3 mGy hr-1.
4.2.2 Scatter from tube, filtration and housing

Scatter in the tube and housing is a well-known source of secondary radiation; it is
generated as the primary beam passes through the construction elements of the tube,
coolant, tube housing and the collimator. This scatter will give rise to very low levels of
additional dose for the patient. It is common to have a transmission ionisation chamber
attached to the front of the collimator. This can be a source of additional scattered
radiation.
4.2.3 Extra-focal radiation

This occurs adjacent to the collimated X-ray field and is generated by energised electrons in
the tube that interact with parts of the anode other than the focal spot. This should not be
confused with the penumbra of the primary beam; it is of lower intensity but affects a much
larger area.
23
Figure 4.3. A typical rotating anode X-ray tube. The cathode is the source of energised
electrons, which travel to the anode on initiation of exposure
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Rotating_anode_X-
ray_tube_%28labeled%29.jpg).
Figure 4.3 identifies the components of a typical rotating anode X-ray tube. Electrons
released from the heated cathode filament are accelerated across the near total vacuum in
the tube by electrostatic forces. Various design elements help to focus the majority of
accelerating electrons to interact with the anode in a very small area, known as the focal
spot. However, this focusing is not perfect. Electrons can diverge from the accelerated
electron beam. Because they are generated away from the focus, any X-ray photons
generated from these electron interactions are termed extra-focal, or off-focus radiation.
Their exit trajectory from the tube housing and collimator are different from that expected
and illuminated by the light field. They can emerge from the collimator more divergent from
the central ray than the primary field. These photons are therefore present across the
illuminated field and also beyond it. Modern multi-leaf collimators are designed with extra
collimation leaves close to the tube port (Figure 4.4, C1) to reduce the area irradiated by
extra-focal radiation as much as possible.
24
Figure 4.4 Extra-focal radiation and its trajectory from the X-ray tube and collimator. This
diagram shows a multi-leaf collimator designed to reduce off-focal radiation to the
minimum.
The effects of extra-focal radiation can clearly be seen using modern digital detectors with a
wide dynamic range (Figure 4.5). The use of extra-focal shielding immediately adjacent to
the collimated primary beam has been advocated by several authors.6,7 However, risks to
the patient from the focal/extra-focal radiation is generally agreed to be small, due to the
primary to extra-focal radiation ratio being of the order of 500:1.8,9,10
25
Figure 4.5 The window width of this image has been decreased. The image of soft tissue and
bone from extra-focal radiation outside of the primary field of irradiation is now evident.
4.2.4 Scatter from irradiated objects

The patient themselves and the patient support are a source of secondary radiation during
exposure. Internal scatter within the patient is difficult to quantify but can be the major
source of secondary radiation to an organ outside the primary beam. It is very difficult to
shield one part of the patient from another internally. Work by Iball and Brettle (2010)11
provides evidence to suggest that it is the predominant component of any radiation dose
measured within the patient close to the primary beam (<17 cm). This will be unaffected by
the application of local shielding.
Culp and Barbara12 identified scatter from objects under the patient (Bucky surfaces,
mattresses, spine boards, etc.) to be responsible for approximately a tenth of the dose rate
measured as extra-focal radiation.
Scatter from the patient is most commonly seen as a risk to the clinical staff conducting the
examination rather than the patient themselves. However, there have been some concerns
raised about the possibility of backscatter to the patient from the underside of any contact
protection applied to the patient surface. Matyagin and Collins (2016)13 considered the
26
theoretical possibility that scatter leaving the patient might be backscattered towards the
patient from any shielding applied, such as a drape or pad for the protection of cardiologists
fingers. Their modelling suggests there may be an effect, but it is small, superficial, and falls
off rapidly away from the primary X-ray field (Figure 4.6).
Figure 4.6 Reduction in radiation dose with distance from the primary X-ray field (from
reference 13, used with permission).
Iball et al (2008)14 modelled patient dose from secondary sources of radiation in Computed
Tomography, where the dose rates and duration of the primary beam are high. Figure 4.7
shows the relative contribution of the three types of scatter (internal, external, and
backscatter from an applied shield) to the fetus. This shows that the backscatter from the
applied shielding towards the patient is the smallest and its insignificance as a contributor to
patient dose is apparent when it is remembered that all these contributions are many
magnitudes smaller than the incident primary beam dose rates.
27
Figure 4.7 The relative contributions of the three sources of secondary radiation to the total
fetal dose at 140 kVp. Used with permission from Iball et al (2008).14
4.3 Summary
The primary beam provides significantly higher dose rates than all sources of secondary
radiation, as illustrated in Table 4.1. Therefore optimisation techniques which limit the
primary beam size and position will have far greater impact upon patient dose than any
efforts spent reducing the exposure from secondary radiation sources. After that, if
additional shielding is deemed necessary to reduce secondary radiation, then it will be most
effective close to the beam edge.
Table 4.1 provides a comparison of the three categories of primary beam dose rates
typically encountered and the likely dose rates from secondary sources thus generated. It is
useful for comparison However, it is important to remember that patient dose will depend
on the duration of the exposure as well as the dose rate. This can be as short as a few
milliseconds in projection radiography, compared with CT sequences of several seconds and
fluoroscopy exposure times with a potential duration of many minutes. Any risk benefit
calculation regarding the potential application of any contact shielding must take into
account the likely dose rate (and duration of exposure) of the sources the shielding might
attenuate.
28
Table 4.1 Example dose rates (in mGy s-1) at 75 cm from the tube focus, due to various
radiation sources, for three X-ray imaging modalities.
Source of radiation exposure Dose Rate (mGy s-1) at 75 cm
Fluoroscopy Projection CT
Radiography
Primary beam 5 25 50
Extra-focal (0.2% of primary) 0.01 0.05 0.10
Scatter from irradiated objects 0.001 0.005 0.010
Tube housing leakage 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
References
1. Datz H, Bader D, Sadetzki S, Juster-Reicher A, Marks K, Smolkin T, Zangen S and

Margaliot M. The additional dose to radiosensitive organs caused by using under-
collimated X-ray beams in neonatal intensive care radiography. Rad. Prot. Dosim.
2008; 130(4): 518–524.
2. Fauber TL and Dempsey MC. X-ray Field Size and Patient Dosimetry. Radiol. Technol.
2013; 85(2): 155–161.
3. Stollfuss J, Schneide, K and Krüger-Stollfuss I. A comparative study of collimation in
bedside chest radiography for preterm infants in two teaching hospitals. Eur. J.
Radiol. Open. 2015; 2: 118–122.
4. BSI, 2010. Medical electrical equipment. Particular requirements for the basic safety
and essential performance of X-ray tube assemblies for medical diagnosis. BS EN
60601-2-28, London, BSI (2010).
5. Tsalafoutas IA. Excessive leakage radiation measured on two mobile X-ray units due
to the methodology used by the manufacturer to calculate and specify the required
tube shielding. Br. J. Radiol. 2006; 79(938): 162–164.
6. Hawking N and Sharp T. Decreasing Radiation Exposure on Pediatric Portable Chest
Radiographs. Radiol. Technol. 2013; 85(1): 9–16.
7. Mekis N, Zontar D and Skrk D. The effect of breast shielding during lumbar spine
radiography. Radiol. Oncol. 2013; 47(1): 26–31.
8. Miettunen R. Measurement of extra-focal radiation by computed radiography. Br. J.
Radiol. 1992; 65: 238–241.
9. Birch R. The spectrum and intensity of extra-focal (off-focus) radiation. Br. J. Radiol.
1976; 49:951–955.
10. Thomas SR, Freshcorn JE, Krugh KB, Henry GC, Kereiakes JG and Kaufman RA.
Characteristics of extra-focal radiation and its potential significance in pediatric
radiology. Radiology 1983; 146: 793–799.
29
11. Iball GR and Brettle DS. Organ and effective dose reduction in adult chest CT using
abdominal lead shielding. Br. J. Radiol. 2011; 84: 1020–1026.
12. Culp M and Barbara J. Shield placement: Effect on exposure. Radiol. Technol. 2014;
85(4): 369–376.
13. Matyagin YP and Collins PJ. Effectiveness of abdominal shields in chest radiography:
a Monte Carlo evaluation. Br. J. Radiol. 2016; 89(1066): 20160465.
14. Iball G, Kennedy EV and Brettle DS. Modelling the effect of lead and other materials
for shielding of the fetus in CT pulmonary angiography, Br. J. Radiol. 2008; 81(966):
499–503.
30
Chapter 5 Operator responsibilities
5.1 Overview
The rare application of patient contact shielding should be justified and employers should
develop clear criteria for its use. The operator must be adequately trained (see chapter 6)
and aware of their responsibilities when using patient contact shielding. In general this
should be covered by education at pre-registration level, local training and Continuous
Professional Development (CPD) programmes.
Patients should experience the same high standards of care regardless of where their
medical exposure takes place. Guidance provides scientific evidence to support assistant
practitioners (AP), radiographers, radiologists and others acting as IR(ME)R1,2 operators to
offer safe, high quality and consistent radiographic care to patients.
The operator should be familiar with the guidance and employers should support the
operator by providing written procedures, time and suitable equipment for staff to carry out
their duties as IR(ME)R operators.
The operator is an IR(ME)R-entitled duty holder responsible for practical aspects of the
exposure and for complying with the employer’s procedures.1,2 The use of patient contact
shielding in diagnostic imaging is a practical aspect. This guidance recommends its use only
in specific circumstances informed by recent and relevant evidence. Operators should be
further guided by what matters to the patient,3 taking care to ensure operator actions result
in an overall net benefit to the patient.
Operators should take care to ensure the patient understands the function of shielding as
the final element in a comprehensive and individualised dose reduction strategy. Where
indicated, it should be integral to the benefit risk conversation with the patient. Operators
should be respectful of individual choice and non-judgmental; the operator has a
responsibility to keep the patient safe and to take action to prevent harm. Shielding devices
should be appropriately used and accurately positioned to provide efficient protection to
the relevant body part.4
It is considered good practice to have a written procedure for the use of patient shielding
which should contain inclusion criteria. It may be helpful to incorporate scenarios to
illustrate how and when patient shielding should be used. It is important to note that local
procedures should allow for the professional judgement of the operator in individual
circumstances. The operator should document reasoned decisions that do not comply with
the procedure. Procedures should include a process to manage the need for repeat
exposures and how this is recorded (see chapter 6).
31
5.2 Communication
Historical practice means that for some time there is likely to be a natural expectation that
patient contact shielding is used. Operators may need to take time to explain to the patient
the rationale for not using it until this becomes normalised practice. In the rare
circumstances where its use is advocated, operators should be adequately trained to do
so.1,2 The application of shielding directly onto the skin or clothing of a patient can be a
sensitive task. The patient should be provided with adequate information, prior to
placement, which explains the associated benefits and risks of using the shielding. Good
communication, where the conversation is supported by knowledge and evidence, helps
nurture trust between the patient and the operator and is likely to result in a higher rate of
acceptable diagnostic images. The priority should always be achieving a high quality
diagnostic image where benefit outweighs risk.5
When communicating the benefit and risk of using patient contact shielding the following
points should be considered:
 Is the patient/their representative/the referrer asking for patient contact shielding
contrary to recommended guidelines? In these circumstances, is the operator
confident to respond to challenges regarding the absence of shielding and if not why
not?
 Does the evidence support the use of patient contact shielding for this examination?
(See chapter 3.)
 Is there a local procedure for this examination? (See chapter 6.)
 Does the patient meet the inclusion criteria? (See chapter 6.)
 Is the operator/trainee adequately trained/supervised to use the shielding? (See
chapter 6.)
 Has the application of local procedures for transgender or gender non-conforming
individuals been considered?
 Is there anything in the clinical information for this patient that precludes the use of
patient contact shielding?
 Is its use justified? (Consider the risk of the patient being unable to comply and the
effect on image quality.)
 Is the patient contact shielding fit for purpose? (Approved for use, free from defect,
clean and the correct size – include special considerations in neonatal care.)
 Will it do any harm to the patient or adversely affect image quality if it is used
contrary to local procedures or professional guidance? Decisions made in these
circumstances should be documented along with the rationale for doing so.
 Is it safe to delay the examination if the patient is still insisting on the use of patient
contact shielding contrary to advice? Is the patient likely to be significantly reassured
if patient contact shielding is used, even if it is unlikely to afford them any radiation
protection? (N.B. it is not recommended that patient contact shielding is used as a
32
means of reassurance. This should be addressed through appropriate one to one

communication.)
The specific needs of paediatric patients should be taken into consideration and techniques
used to aid communication and nurture confidence (for example play specialists and
distraction techniques). The use of patient contact shielding, where indicated, must be the
final step in an overarching optimisation strategy.
The following scenarios are provided to illustrate some of the challenges and suggested
outcomes operators may experience in practice.
Scenario 1
A two year old child arrives for a chest X-ray. They are upset and distracted by the
unfamiliar environment. The operator, who is a radiographer in this case, explains the
benefits and risks of the exposure to the child’s parent. In accordance with the locally
agreed procedure, patient contact shielding is not required for this examination. The
radiographer provides assurance that the potential harm from a repeat exposure is
considered a greater risk than the exposure from scattered radiation. They further explain
that the priority for optimising the child’s exposure is close collimation of the primary
beam in order to avoid irradiating organs unnecessarily. The parent is reassured and
agrees to the examination proceeding without the use of patient contact shielding. A play
specialist works with the operator and parent and helps calm the child who manages to sit
still in the required position for the chest X-ray.
The risk of patient contact shielding moving and obscuring the lung bases should be
balanced against the risk of a repeat exposure and the anticipated benefit from reducing
dose from scattered radiation.
Scenario 2
A pregnant 25 year old female attends from the emergency department for a CT
pulmonary angiogram. There is a high clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism. The
patient is very unwell and is also distressed about the safety of her unborn child during the
scan. She is insisting on the use of patient contact shielding for her abdomen and pelvis.
There is a local procedure for pregnant patients undergoing CT which necessitates a
consultant referrer to consultant practitioner referral pathway and recommends patient
shielding is not used. The examination is justified with instructions for additional
optimisation by using a reduced scan length. The radiographer explains the benefits and
risks of the scan to the patient including the local policy not to use patient shielding. The
patient is not convinced as she is aware that radiation can cause cancer. Consequently the
patient becomes more distressed despite the efforts of the radiographer and the
emergency department staff to reassure her. The radiographer discusses the benefits and
risks with the referrer and the practitioner.
33
There are three options:

1. Not perform the scan - assess whether the risk of using the patient contact
shielding (including the risk of having to repeat the scan) outweighs the benefit of
the scan.
2. Delay the scan until the patient can be convinced to proceed without patient
shielding - assess the risk as above.
3. Perform the scan using the patient contact shielding - the benefit to the patient
and the unborn child of reaching a diagnosis and commencing appropriate
treatment outweighs any risk to the unborn child of a potential repeat exposure
due to obscured anatomy caused by the shielding.
The decision is made to perform the scan using the patient contact shielding. The patient
must be able to tolerate the weight of the shielding for the duration of the scan. The risk
of a repeat exposure if the patient or shielding moves should be clearly explained. The
reasoned decision is documented by the operator. The dose is recorded in the patient
record according to the local procedure.
Important notes to consider:

 Special consideration should be given to referral pathways for pregnant patients
undergoing CT. This should take into account the stage of pregnancy.
 Alternative means of reaching a diagnosis should have been excluded.
 CT protocols must be optimised and advice sought from the MPE to ensure
exposures are as low as reasonably practicable.
 Operators must be adequately trained to ensure they have the knowledge, skills,
competence and confidence to appropriately influence the benefit/risk discussion.
They should not acquiesce to the patient’s early request for shielding unless the
benefit of not following professional body guidance can be clearly demonstrated.
 Operators must be adequately trained with the knowledge, skills and competence
to optimise exposures. In the case of CT this means adapting scan technique where
appropriate (for example shortening the length of the scan where justified) and
understanding when it is appropriate to use contact shielding as a final
optimisation measure.
 The patient has a right to express what matters to them. The operator and
practitioner should consider whether reducing anxiety is likely to contribute to
improved tolerance or compliance with the scan instructions. Benefit should
always outweigh risk.
 Employer’s procedures for the use of patient shielding (where appropriate) should
include the type of shielding and its use (see chapter 5).
 In all cases, the patient must be provided with adequate information relating to
the benefits and risks of the exposure and the measures taken to reduce patient
and fetal dose before the exposure takes place.
Several factors may influence the decision to use contact shielding. As previously stated it
should be based on scientific evidence. In addition to this its use may be determined by the
clinical indications for the examination, practitioner and operator training, and professional
judgement. Within this context, both what matters to the patient and professional body
34
guidance should be considered. Careful attention should be given to the documentation of

any practice outside normal recommended procedures.
5.3 Consent
The patient must give permission before they receive any type of medical treatment, test or
examination.6 This includes the placement of patient contact shielding. In the rare
circumstances when patient contact shielding is justified, the patient must be fully informed and
provided with adequate information regarding the benefits and risks of using the contact
shielding to enable them to make a choice. Operators should be familiar with the legislation
and professional body guidance associated with capacity and consent matters.7
5.4 Patient Complaints and Duty of Candour
Patient complaints should be thoroughly investigated. Where appropriate, an incident or

error arising from the improper use of patient contact shielding should be investigated to
determine the root cause and contributory factors. Analysis and feedback, focussed on
learning from errors rather than ascribing blame, should form part of the local governance
assurance framework.
The NHS has a contractual obligation under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated
Activities) Regulations 2014: Regulation 20, to be open with patients when things go wrong
with their healthcare. This is termed the “Duty of Candour’ and is integral to the
development of an open and honest culture that provides patients with information about
their healthcare. The implementation of “Duty of Candour” varies across the devolved
nations. Staff should refer to the regulations and guidance for the country they are working
in. The enforcing authorities in England,8 Scotland9 and Wales10 have published guidance
and information for providers of healthcare.
5.5 Summary
Written procedures based on statutory regulations, available guidance and scientific

evidence help to ensure more consistent operator practice. This is supported by education
at pre-registration level, local training and Continuous Professional Development (CPD)
programmes. Patients must receive adequate information, time and opportunity to discuss
and consent to the examination, including the decision to include or omit patient contact
shielding, prior to the exposure. Those who query inconsistent practice should be supported
to do so and signposted to further information including local policies and procedures and
associated evidence. Employers should support operators to make decisions in the best
interests of the individual patient.
35
Patient requests patient Operators have the skills, knowledge Adequate training
contact shielding and competence to explain the should be evidenced
presence or absence of patient in operator training
contact shielding. They should be records and reflected
confident to influence the discussion in CPD.
in the best interests of the patient.
Where it is recommended for use, Ensure written

ensure operators are skilled in its procedures explicitly
application to prevent the need for list these
repeat exposures. examinations and
that operators know
where to find them.
Ideally it will be an
electronic record with
appropriate version
control.
In other exceptional circumstances In these cases the

where the patient has made a request psychological benefit
for shielding outside local policies, the to the patient may be
operator should try to understand considered. Use only
why and then explain the benefits and for those scenarios
risks involved. Operators should where the risk of not
discuss individual challenging using it outweighs the
situations with the practitioner and benefit.
referrer to determine what is best for
the patient.
References

(No. 1322).
(Northern Ireland) 2018 (Government Printer for Northern Ireland).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2018/17/body/made [Accessed 21.03. 2019].
36
3. The Society and College of Radiographers (2018). Values-based Practice in Diagnostic

& Therapeutic Radiography: A Training Template.
https://www.sor.org/learning/document-library [Accessed 15.07.2019]
4. International Atomic Energy Agency. Radiation protection of children in radiology.
https://www.iaea.org/resources/rpop/health-professionals/radiology/children#2
[Accessed 22.03.2019].
5. Society and College of Radiographers (2019). Communicating Radiation Benefit and
Risk Information to Individuals Under the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure)
Regulations (IR(ME)R). https://www.sor.org/learning/document-library [Accessed
29.05.2019]
6. NHS Consent to treatment – NHS. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-
treatment/ [Accessed 22.03.2019].
7. Society and College of Radiographers (2018). Obtaining consent: a clinical guideline
for the diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy workforce.
https://www.sor.org/learning/document-library [Accessed 29.05.2019]
8. Care Quality Commission (2015). Regulation 20: Duty of candour. Information for all
providers: NHS bodies, adult social care, primary medical and dental care, and
independent healthcare.
https://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20150327_duty_of_candour_guidance_fi
nal.pdf [Accessed March 22, 2019].
9. Scottish Government (2018). Organisational duty of candour: guidance. Available at
https://www.gov.scot/publications/organisational-duty-candour-guidance/
[Accessed 29.05.2019]
10. The National Health Service (Concerns, Complaints and Redress Arrangements)
(Wales) Regulations 2011 (Queen’s Printer of Acts of Parliament).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2011/704/contents/made [Accessed 22.03.2019].
37
Chapter 6 Clinical service requirements for patient contact

shielding
6.1 Overview
For all exposures involving ionising radiation, there must be sufficient net benefit to
outweigh the risk posed from the effects of the radiation. The presence or absence of
patient contact shielding should form part of the benefit and risk analysis for each individual
exposure.
Due to innovation in technology and dose reduction strategies the use of patient contact
shielding will rarely increase the benefit to the patient. In some cases, where the shielding is
not used correctly, it may increase the exposure to the patient or produce suboptimal image
quality.1 In specific situations where it has been agreed it is appropriate to use patient
contact shielding, justification for its use should be documented.
The use of patient contact shielding should never be used as the primary method of
reducing patient dose and is generally not recommended for the majority of imaging
exposures.
6.2 Priorities in imaging
The principal objective of a medical exposure involving ionising radiation is to provide an

image of sufficient diagnostic quality to answer the clinical question or to guide an
interventional procedure while keeping doses as low as reasonably practicable. This is
achieved through justification, optimisation and good radiographic technique.
Technical advances in medical imaging equipment and protocol optimisation have resulted
in significant dose reductions.2 Evidence-based radiographic practice is more likely to have a
greater impact on radiation dose reduction than the use of patient contact shielding. It is
important, therefore, that IR(ME)R operators work in collaboration with IR(ME)R
practitioners and medical physics experts (MPE) to focus on reducing overall dose by
employing appropriate techniques such as accurate collimation, and the selection of
optimised exposure factors and protocols. Operators and practitioners must ensure that
diagnostic exposures are kept as low as reasonably practicable, consistent with the intended
purpose.
There should be a procedure agreed, through the local governance process, to describe
when and how to use patient contact shielding.
38
The procedure should include:

 Training and appropriate use of patient contact shielding (inclusion criteria and
contraindications)
 Purchase, storage and maintenance of patient contact shielding
 Patient communication (including how to respond to challenging scenarios)
 Process for when repeat exposures are required due to misplacement of shielding
6.3 Training
Operators must be adequately trained and have the underpinning knowledge, education,
skills and assessment of competence to know when and how to use patient contact
shielding. Training should take into account professional body guidance and local
agreements. Practice should be informed by research and should be regularly reviewed
through audit. Local agreements should reflect this and any revisions to policies and
procedures be communicated to operators and practitioners in a timely manner.
There should be clearly documented and communicated local inclusion criteria that detail
the type of examination and patient demographic where the use of patient contact shielding
may be used.
In those specific situations where patient contact shielding is justified, any device used for
shielding the patient from radiation must be correctly applied. A poorly placed shield may
partially or completely obscure relevant anatomy and/or pathology.
Patient contact shielding in the primary beam may also introduce visual perception artefacts
to the observer, such as the Mach effect.3 Improper placement of patient contact shielding
when using an Automatic Exposure Control (AEC) system may cause the exposure to the
patient to be increased or reduce the quality of the image.
Obscuring anatomy or degradation of image quality may result in the need for a repeat
exposure. Images seen to have patient contact shielding that obscures relevant anatomical
features should be saved and evaluated by the operator. This should preferably be done
prior to the repeat exposure to confirm the requirement for additional information.
Radiation errors caused by poor practice should be recorded as an unintended exposure in

line with local incident reporting procedures.
Operators should refer to local procedures or seek advice from their MPE in non-standard or
challenging situations.
39
Training should include but is not limited to:

 Selection and purchase of patient contact shielding (including appropriate standards
or certification) – shielding should be appropriate for the intended purpose and
there should be a range of sizes available for babies, children and adults.
 Storage of patient contact shielding – manufacturer’s instructions must be followed
to minimise damage.
 Maintenance – in line with local infection control procedures (fit for purpose and
responsibility to remove when damaged).
 Quality assurance checks – how and when checks should be completed and recorded
 Knowledge of policies and procedures relating to the use of patient contact shielding
– in particular, to babies, children and young adults.4
 Appropriate radiographic technique – when and how to use patient contact
shielding.
 Communication skills (see chapter 5.2).
6.4 Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
Registered health care professionals have a responsibility to meet the CPD and lifelong
learning standards of their regulatory or professional body.5,6,7,8 It is also a requirement of
IR(ME)R, that employers must take steps to ensure that every practitioner or operator
engaged to carry out exposures undertake CPD. There should be a process in place to
ensure training in the correct positioning of patient contact shielding is completed, recorded
in the individuals training file and updated when new techniques are introduced.
While radiography has progressed significantly in the last few decades, the practice of using
patient contact shielding on patients has remained almost entirely unchanged. Operators
should regard the function of patient contact shielding to be the final element in a
comprehensive and individualised dose reduction strategy and not a primary dose reduction
technique. Operators must keep up to date with current techniques and technologies to
ensure doses are justified, optimised and kept as low as reasonably practicable.
6.5 Procurement, storage and maintenance of patient contact shields
The decision to purchase patient contact shielding devices should be made after
consultation with the MPE to ensure appropriate selection is made. Each device should be
used, stored and cleaned in line with manufacturers’ guidelines and local infection control
policies. It should be fit for its intended purpose and any damage reported to the
appropriate person. Improper storage can result in a reduction in the effectiveness of the
shielding. Deterioration of outer surface of contact shielding material may also cause the
production of lead dust which can lead to low level lead exposure in both children and
adults.9
40
Examinations should not be performed using inappropriate substitute materials. Products

with a UK product safety mark can be assured of compliance with basic health and safety
requirements.10
6.6 Applying patient contact shielding
Some practical issues to consider where shielding has been justified:

 Possible discomfort experienced by the patient (due to position or weight).
 Possibility of the shielding moving during an examination (due to patient
age/capacity/medical condition).
 Manual handling challenges for staff.
 Infection control – compliance with organisational and local procedures.
With paediatric patients it may be more difficult to ensure that the contact shielding
remains out of the primary beam, due to patient size and risk of movement. A locally agreed
standard for the use of shielding in children should reflect best practice and should take into
account the responsibilities of operators.11
Careful consideration should be given to the benefits and risks of attempting to use patient
contact shielding on a confused or uncooperative patient. Reference should be made to
consent procedures.
Occasionally, physical location of the organs requiring protection may be challenging. To

illustrate this, Figure 6.1 demonstrates the variation in practice and challenges associated
with accurately identifying the position of the ovaries when placing gonad shielding.4
Figure 6.1 Schematic diagram of pelvis with positions of 128 ovaries plotted, located
using ultrasound.4
In the rare circumstance where the use of patient contact shielding is justified, written
procedures should reflect equality and diversity and meet the needs of local populations.
This may include the use of shielding for patients, for example, who may find it difficult to
cooperate. Careful consideration should be given to the location of reproductive organs in
41
transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. Where required, there should be a

suitable range of devices available to meet the age and size requirements of the individual.
Some providers may include a size guide for reference.
Regular assessment of practice and review of local policies and procedures are
recommended.
6.7 Leadership
Leadership plays an important role in setting a standard for the appropriate use of patient
contact shielding in diagnostic imaging. Continuing education and the consistent application
of local procedures will encourage a culture of good practice. Regular monitoring of
compliance and reflective feedback, including learning from errors and near misses, are key
to good governance and to the continuing professional development of the operator. A
multidisciplinary team approach with support from senior staff and MPEs will encourage a
culture of evolution and evidence-based learning. The formation of multidisciplinary
radiation protection champions12 within Image Optimisation Teams (IOT)13 should support,
drive and provide training in all areas of radiation protection including patient contact
shielding.
6.8 Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)
Audit is a quality improvement process that can be used to measure organisational

compliance against local policies and procedures. Reject analysis is an important quality
assurance tool that helps to evaluate areas of practice that can be improved. By examining
the underlying causes for rejected images, which may include the misplacement of patient
contact shielding, it is possible to identify technical and training issues14 and can help
increase departmental performance, reduce radiation burden, and decrease waiting times.15
Images that have been rejected due to a misplaced patient contact shielding device should
be recorded and form part of the clinical audit process for education and service
improvement.
Further information and advice on reject analysis is available.16,17
6.9 Repeat exposures
The local reject analysis programme should include inappropriate or inaccurate use of
patient contact shielding as an option. The local procedure should outline the process for
the review of repeat exposures.
42
Prior to a repeat exposure being carried out the operator should confirm the requirements
for additional information based on the clinical question being asked. It may be possible to
limit the field of view for the repeat image to the obscured or missing anatomy.
6.10 Summary
The use of patient contact shielding is not generally recommended for diagnostic radiology
applications.
It is expected there may be a few specific situations and exceptions where patient contact
shielding is justified. In these cases, it should be a local multidisciplinary decision with these
exceptions listed in the local procedure which will include:
 Exceptions
 Use of patient contact shielding for the exceptions listed
 Radiation protection training for patient contact shielding
 Patient communication
 Selection, care and QA of the patient contact shielding
 Who to contact for advice/support
 Consent
Diagnostic radiology Not recommended No radiation protective

applications shielding should be
routinely applied
References
1. Marsh RM and Silosky M. Patient Shielding in Diagnostic Imaging: Discontinuing a

Legacy Practice. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2019; 212(4): 755-757.
2. Slovis TL and Strauss KJ. Gonadal shielding for neonates. Pediatr. Radiol. 2013; 43:
1265–1266.
3. Panikkath R and Panikkath D. Mach band sign: an optical illusion. Proc. (Bayl. Univ.
Med. Cent). 2014; 27: 364–5.
4. Warlow T, Walker-Birch P and Cosson P. Gonad shielding in paediatric pelvic
radiography: Effectiveness and practice. Radiography 2014; 20: 178–182.
5. Principles for continuing professional development and lifelong learning in health
and social care. https://www.sor.org/learning/document-library
6. RCR CPD Scheme. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/clinical-oncology/cpd/cpd-scheme
43
7. GMC CPD Scheme. https://www.gmc-uk.org/education/standards-guidance-and-

curricula/guidance/continuing-professional-development
8. HCPC CPD Scheme. https://www.hcpc-uk.org/cpd/
9. Burns KM, Shoag JM, Kahlon SS, Parsons PJ, Bijur PE, Taragin BH and Markowitz M.
Lead aprons are a lead exposure hazard. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2017; 14: 641–647.
10. CE marking – GOV.UK Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ce-marking
[Accessed 20.03.2019].
11. Society and College of Radiographers, 2012. Imaging Children; immobilisation,
distraction techniques and use of sedation. Society of Radiographers. Available at:
https://www.sor.org/learning/document-library/imaging-children-immobilisation-
distraction-techniques-and-use-sedation [Accessed 20.03.2019].
12. Elliott A. et al. Patient radiation dose issues resulting from the use of CT in the UK.
London, Public Health England, 104pp. (COMARE, 16th Report). 2014.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
hment_data/file/343836/COMARE_16th_Report.pdf.
13. Department of Health Expert Working Party response to: Committee on Medical
Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) 16th Report ‘Patient radiation
dose issues resulting from the use of CT in the UK’ (2016).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/response-to-the-review-of-radiation-
dose-issues-from-ct-scans.
14. Taylor N. The art of rejection: Comparative analysis between Computed Radiography
(CR) and Digital Radiography (DR) workstations in the Accident and Emergency and
General radiology departments at a district general hospital using customised and
standardised reject. Radiography 2015; 21: 236–241.
15. Clark P and Hogg P. Reject/repeat analysis and the effect prior film viewing has on a
department’s reject/repeat rate. Radiography 2003; 9: 127–137.
16. BIR, 2001. Assurance of Quality in the Diagnostic X-ray Department, second edition.
British Institute of Radiology.
17. AAPM, 2002. Quality Control in Diagnostic Radiology. American Association of
Physicists in Medicine Report 74 (Diagnostic X-ray imaging Committee Task Group).
44
Chapter 7 Shielding in general radiography
The use of patient contact shielding is not recommended for general radiography for the
majority of imaging situations (see section 7.7). Where patient contact shielding is being
considered, the guidance in these chapters should be taken into account.
7.1 Organs at risk
In general radiography the anatomy imaged and the organs in or near to the primary beam
are highly variable, being dependant on the pathology of interest and the operator’s
technique (e.g. positioning and collimation). When undertaking exposures, the operator will
need to consider which organs are to be included in the primary beam or will be close by,
and how the anatomy of interest can be imaged while excluding as much of the surrounding
anatomy as possible.
There are a number of organs that could potentially have patient contact shielding applied.
These are generally organs near to the surface of the body and have previously been
considered easily locatable. Reports from the International Commission on Radiological
Protection1,2 suggested that consideration should be given to the breast, gonads and thyroid
where these organs lie within 5 cm of the primary beam. However, patient contact shielding
applied to these organs has the potential to obscure the anatomy of interest, especially
when placed within the primary beam, which effectively rules out its potential use. This also
applies to other organs which can have similar or greater radiosensitivity than those listed in
the ICRP publications1,2 (such as the colon during projections of the abdomen). However,
there is little literature published regarding potential benefit or detriment of patient contact
shielding for these other organs.
The radiosensitivity previously attributed to the gonads has been reduced over time as more
evidence has come to light (see chapter 3). The historically higher radiosensitivity attributed
to the gonads is the likely reason for the acceptance into common practice of applying
patient contact shielding (e.g. in the form of gonad shields). It may be possible to exclude
the male gonads from the primary beam using collimation. The accurate positioning of
gonad shields on female patients is compromised by a large variation in gonad location,4,5,6,7
resulting in the ovaries often not being shielded. This is particularly prevalent in small
children. Where such shielding is incorrectly placed there may be a resulting loss of
diagnostic information with the potential requirement for repeated imaging, or an increase
in dose where placed over an AEC device.3,4,5
The thyroid may be included in or close to the primary beam for some projections (for
example radiography of anatomy including the chest, cervical spine, skull, or shoulder).
45
Shielding of the thyroid may be possible with the use of a thyroid shield, however in cases
where the thyroid lies in the primary beam (for example applying a thyroid shield when
imaging the cervical spine) the anatomy of interest may also be obscured.
Protection of the breast tissue may be possible (e.g. with a scoliosis shawl) in anterior-
posterior (AP) examinations of the spine. However, ICRP 1211 recommends the use of
posterior-anterior (PA) positioning for spinal examinations, particularly in pubescent girls
where the developing breast tissue is considered to be more radiation sensitive. In PA
examinations the body will provide attenuation of the X-ray beam, protecting the breast
tissue, with collimation restricting the area exposed to radiation. Patient contact shielding
to the exit side of the patient would provide negligible protection for the patient and can
lead to repeat imaging due to obscuring anatomy or increase dose by interfering with the
operation of an AEC device.
In general, with good collimation and using PA positioning for skull, spinal and chest X-rays,
patient contact shielding is likely to have a negligible effect and, in many instances, may
obscure diagnostic information or lead to an overall increase in patient dose.
There are risks from the application of in-beam protection. These include:
 Shielding may impinge on the detector forming part of the Automatic Exposure
Control (AEC) mechanism. Should the patient contact shielding obscure the AEC in
any way, the result may be significantly increased dose relative to not using the
patient contact shielding. Patient contact shielding MUST NOT be used where there
is a chance that this may occur.
 Patient contact shielding may obscure anatomy of interest. This would necessitate
repeat imaging which in turn leads to an increased radiation dose.
As described in chapter 4.1.1, general radiography equipment is usually equipped with

adjustable collimation allowing a rectangular radiation field to be defined, along with a light
beam diaphragm that illuminates the radiation field on the patient. Using anatomic
landmarks, the operator (e.g. radiographer) is able to adjust the size of the primary beam to
an area of interest. Good collimation (as close to the anatomy of interest as possible) is of
key importance to reducing patient dose. Careful collimation restricts the area of the patient
irradiated to that necessary which can reduce or prevent the inclusion of sensitive organs
present in the primary beam and in turn reduce the radiation dose to the patient. It also
reduces secondary radiation which can lead to improvements in image quality. A move to
digital imaging has led to the introduction of digital cropping (also known as a dark mask). It
should be noted that this is not the same as collimating the primary beam.
46
Shielding of organs at risk more than 5 cm from the primary beam is likely to have a
negligible effect on the radiation dose received.1 In the case of the male gonads (where
excluded from the primary beam using collimation), it may be possible to accurately place
the patient contact shield given that the gonads can often be observed (in the case of small
children this is likely to be considerably more difficult), however the considerations in
chapter 4 (patient consent) should be taken into account.
Should a patient contact shielding device obscure an active AEC device, there is the likely
risk that this will significantly increase the radiation dose to the patient. Care should be
taken where patient contact shielding is used to ensure that it does not encroach in any way
on the AEC system. If there is a risk of this happening then patient contact shielding must
not be used.
7.6.1 Pregnant patients

The Health Protection Agency (HPA, now referred to as Public Health England), Society and
College of Radiographers (SCoR) and the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR)8 have published
guidance regarding the protection of pregnant patients during diagnostic ionising radiation
exposures. The application of shielding to pregnant patients is considered with regard to
increased dose to the fetus. ICRP report 342 also makes recommendations regarding
diagnostic radiology exposures during pregnancy. In summary, these publications
recommend:
 Radiography of areas remote from the fetus may be carried out at any point during
pregnancy with no additional patient contact shielding, provided that accurate
collimation is used and that the equipment itself is adequately shielded. Guidance
indicates that ‘remote from the fetus’ refers to any examination outside the area
between the diaphragm and knees.8 In the UK, all appropriately CE marked
equipment (see discussion in chapter 5) should fall within the category of adequately
shielded. The Medical Physics Expert (MPE) should be able to advise if clarification is
required.
 Where the pelvis may be included in the primary beam, consideration should be
given to the use of alternative non-ionising techniques such as MRI or ultrasound. If
ionising radiation must be used then a thorough assessment should be carried out to
ensure that exposure to the fetus is justified.8 ICRP report 342 recommends that if
the exposure is justified then consideration should be given to the techniques used
to ensure dose to the fetus is kept as low as reasonably practicable, e.g.
47
minimisation of the number of views taken, strict collimation and partial shielding of
the fetus. However, care must be taken to ensure that the images remain of suitable
diagnostic quality.
The ICRP recommendations do not necessarily consider the psychological effect of an

exposure to ionising radiation on an expectant mother. It has been documented that
pregnant patients undergoing diagnostic radiology examinations may request patient
contact shielding despite undergoing an examination outside the pelvic region and not
usually requiring extra protection.9 In these cases whether or not to provide extra shielding,
usually in the form of lead/lead equivalent material draped over the abdomen, is in
accordance with written procedures and at the discretion of the radiographer. Of course, in
such cases accurate collimation must be used and the shielding must not encroach on the
AEC system.
7.6.2 Paediatrics
When imaging children, the shielding considerations are the same as those for imaging
adults regarding the eye lens, thyroid and breast. However, there is some discussion
regarding the use of patient contact gonad shielding in pelvic examinations for female
paediatric patients due to the unpredictable positioning of the ovaries. Positioning of
traditional shielding may not cover the gonads and may obscure diagnostic information,
inadvertently increasing dose to the gonads due to repeated exposures.
Table 7.1: Recommendations for patient shielding in diagnostic radiology

Patient contact shielding Not recommended Use PA positioning rather than shielding
for protection of breast for spinal and chest examinations where
possible
If using AP projection then a Scoliosis
shawl may be considered
Patient contact shielding Not recommended Recommended where thyroid is less than
for protection of thyroid 5 cm from the primary beam, projection
is AP and will not obscure anatomy of
interest or interfere with AEC device
48
Patient contact shielding Not recommended Male adult and paediatric patients: May
for protection of Gonads be considered where gonads are less
than 5 cm from the primary beam.
Female adult and paediatric patients: Not
recommended for imaging in the pelvic
region due to obscuring diagnostic
information or to interfere with AEC
function.
Patient contact shielding Not recommended Use PA skull positioning, no

for protection of eye lens recommendations for shielding.
Pregnant patients Not recommended Not required for examinations outside

the pelvic region (diaphragm to knee).
For examinations within pelvic region,
consider non-ionising imaging
alternatives. If ionising radiation must be
used carry out a thorough justification
and risk assessment process.
References

radiology. ICRP Publication 121. Ann. ICRP 42(2).
2. ICRP, 1982. Protection of the Patient in Diagnostic Radiology. ICRP Publication 34.
Ann. ICRP 9(2/3).
4. Frantzen MJ, Robben S, Postma AA, Zoetelief J, Wildberger JE and Kemerink GJ.
Gonad shielding in paediatric pelvic radiography: disadvantages prevail over benefit.
Insights into Imaging 2012; 3(1): 23–32.
5. Fawcett SL, Gomez AC, Barter SJ, Ditchfield M and Set P. More harm than good? The
anatomy of misguided shielding of the ovaries. Br. J. Radiol. 2012; 85: e442–e447.
6. Doolan A, Brennan PC, Rainford LA and Healy J. Gonad protection for the antero-
posterior projection of the pelvis in diagnostic radiography in Dublin hospitals.
Radiography 2014; 10: 15–21.
7. Warlow T, Walker-Birch P and Cosson P. Gonad shielding in paediatric pelvic
radiography: Effectiveness and practice. Radiography 2014; 20(3): 178–182.
8. HPA, RCR, SCoR 2009. Protection of Pregnant Patients During Diagnostic Medical
Exposures to Ionising Radiation. Documents of the Health Protection Agency, RCE-9.
study. Radiography 2018; 24: e13–e18.
49
Chapter 8 Shielding in diagnostic and interventional Fluoroscopy
The use of patient contact shielding is not recommended for fluoroscopy for the majority of
imaging situations (see section 8.5). Where patient contact shielding is being considered the
guidance in these chapters should be considered.
8.1 Organs at risk
In fluoroscopy procedures the anatomy imaged and the organs in or near to the primary
beam are highly variable, being dependent on the pathology of interest and the operator’s
technique (e.g. positioning and collimation). When undertaking exposures, the operator will
need to consider which organs are to be included in the primary beam or will be close by
and how the anatomy of interest can be imaged while excluding as much of the surrounding
anatomy as possible.
Fluoroscopy equipment is the collective name for dynamic X-ray imaging systems used for
real-time imaging for diagnosis and image-guidance of therapeutic procedures. There are
two main types of imaging mode supported by dynamic imaging systems:
 ‘Fluoroscopy’– where a sequence of low dose images are generated and displayed in
real time for ‘live’ visualisation during a clinical procedure; and
 ‘Acquisition’ – in which higher dose images are stored automatically during the
sequence and can be reviewed during or after the procedure.
Patient doses from dynamic imaging are amongst the highest radiation doses found in
modern medical practice.1 Fluoroscopy dominates most procedures in terms of time,
whereas in terms of dose, acquisition can account for over half of the total accumulated
patient dose.2,3
Due to modern applications of fluoroscopic imaging there are a number of radio-sensitive

tissues that may be included in the image. In particular, mobile systems and modern static
equipment tend to have the tube and detector mounted on a C-arm, which is capable of a
wide range of rotational movements permitting various cranial/caudal and oblique
projections. Attention should be given to angle the beam away from radiosensitive areas
and collimating these areas out of the field if possible4. The equipment (positioning,
geometry, field of view) is also extremely versatile and care must be taken to minimise
radiation exposure of patients and staff.
Patient contact shielding may be used for protection of the patient’s radio-sensitive organs,
such as the breast, eyes and thyroid, provided it does not interfere with the equipment
50
function (see section 8.3). However, scattered radiation arising and propagating inside the
patient’s body constitutes the main source of radiation dose to organs and this internal
scatter can only be managed by good technique.5
8.3 Influence of shielding on equipment function
For the vast majority of fluoroscopy procedures, modern equipment will operate in a mode
whereby tube voltage, tube current and X-ray pulse rate and duration are determined by an
active automatic dose rate control (ADRC) system. This control mechanism is designed to
maintain the radiation dose to the image detector irrespective of patient size and
attenuation. Therefore any interference with its operation, such as introducing highly
attenuating material into the primary beam, could cause it to increase the exposure factors
and consequently significantly affect patient dose. This could include patient contact
shielding and also lightweight disposable lead-free drapes or pads intended to reduce
scattered radiation levels to the operator.6 Great vigilance would be required to prevent this
from happening since the interference can occur accidentally as the equipment (including
patient) is moved during the dynamic imaging procedure. Repositioning of the shield can be
inconvenient, particularly in technically challenging procedures and could potentially add to
the overall procedure time and dose to the patient.7
Applying protection to organs lying close to the X-ray field is therefore not recommended to
reduce patient dose. The contribution to organ doses lying further afield is unlikely to be
significant compared with internal scatter and could also inhibit the movement of the
equipment when performing oblique views.
8.4.1 Pregnant patients

The Health Protection Agency (HPA, now known as Public Health England), Society and
College of Radiographers (SCoR) and the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) have published
guidance regarding the protection of pregnant patients during diagnostic ionising radiation
exposures.8 The application of shielding to pregnant patients is considered with regard to
increased dose to the fetus. ICRP report 349 also makes recommendations regarding
diagnostic radiology exposures during pregnancy. In summary, these publications
recommend:
 Fluoroscopic imaging of areas remote from the fetus may be carried out at any point
during pregnancy with no additional patient contact shielding, provided that
accurate collimation is used and that the equipment itself is adequately shielded.
Guidance indicates that ‘remote from the fetus’ refers to any examination outside
the area between the diaphragm and knees.8 In the UK, all appropriately CE marked
51
equipment (see discussion in chapter 6) should fall within the category of adequately
shielded. The MPE should be able to advise if clarification is required.
 Where the pelvis may be included in the primary beam, consideration should be
given to the use of alternative non-ionising techniques such as MRI or ultrasound. If
ionising radiation must be used then a thorough assessment should be carried out to
ensure that exposure to the fetus is justified. ICRP report 1214 recommends that if
the exposure is justified then consideration should be given to the techniques used
to ensure dose to the fetus is kept as low as reasonably practicable e.g. pulsed
fluoroscopy, minimizing the number of views taken, strict collimation and angulation
of the beam away from the fetus.
The ICRP recommendations do not necessarily consider the psychological effect of an

exposure to ionising radiation on an expectant mother. It has been documented that
pregnant patients undergoing diagnostic radiology examinations may request patient
contact shielding despite undergoing an examination outside the pelvic region and not
usually requiring extra protection.10 In these cases whether or not to provide extra
shielding, usually in the form of lead/lead equivalent material draped over the abdomen, is
in accordance with written procedures and at the discretion of the operator. In such cases
accurate collimation must be used and the shielding must not encroach on the AEC system.
8.4.2 Paediatrics
When imaging children, the shielding considerations are the same as those for imaging
adults regarding the eye lens, thyroid and breast. However, there is some discussion
regarding the use of patient contact gonad shielding in pelvic examinations for female
paediatric patients due to the unpredictable positioning of the ovaries. Positioning of
traditional shielding may not cover the gonads and may obscure diagnostic information,
inadvertently increasing dose to the gonads due to repeated exposures.
Patient contact shielding Not recommended No radiation protective shielding

during fluoroscopy should be routinely applied to
procedures patients undergoing a
fluoroscopic examination.
Great care should also be taken if
protective material, intended to
reduce staff radiation dose, is
applied to patients.
52
References
1. D’Ercole L, Thyrion F, Bocchiola M, Montavani L and Klersy C. Proposed local

diagnostic reference levels in angiography and interventional neuroradiology and a
preliminary analysis according to the complexity of the procedures. Phys. Med. Biol.
2012; 28(1): 61–70.
2. Pitton M, Kloeckner R, Schneider J, Ruckes C, Bersch A and Duber C. Radiation
exposure in vascular angiographic procedures. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2012; 23(11):
1487–95.
3. Davies AG, Cowen AR, Kengyelics SM, Moore J, Pepper C, Cowan C and Sivanathan
MU. X-ray dose reduction in fluoroscopically guided electrophysiology procedures.
Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 2006; 29(3): 262–71.
radiology. International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 121.
Ann. ICRP 42(2).
5. IAEA, 2018. International Atomic Energy Agency. Radiation protection for patients.
2018.
https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/InformationFor/HealthProfessionals/4_In
terventionalRadiology/fluoroscopy-operating-theatres/fluoroscopy-patient-
protection.htm#FULP-FAQ10 [Accessed 06.07.2018].
6. ICRP, 2018. Occupational radiological protection in interventional procedures. ICRP
Publication 139. Ann. ICRP 47(2) Annals of the ICRP.
7. Power S, Mirza M, Thakorial A, Ganai B, Gavagan LD, Given MF and Lee MJ. Efficacy
of a Radiation Absorbing Shield in Reducing Dose to the Interventionalist During
Peripheral Endovascular Procedures: A Single Centre Pilot Study. Cardiovasc.
Intervent. Radiol. 2015; 38(3): 573–8
8. HPA, RCR, SCoR 2009. Protection of Pregnant Patients During Diagnostic Medical
Exposures to Ionising Radiation. Documents of the Health Protection Agency RCE-9
(2009). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ionising-radiation-protecting-
pregnant-patients-during-diagnostic-medical-exposures [Accessed 29.10.2019].
9. ICRP, 1982. Protection of the Patient in Diagnostic Radiology. ICRP Publication 34.
Ann. ICRP 9(2/3).
study. Radiography. 2018; 24: e13–e18.
53
Chapter 9 Shielding in CT
The use of patient contact shielding is not recommended for CT for the majority of imaging
situations (see section 9.7). Where patient contact shielding is being considered, the
guidance in these chapters should be taken into account.
9.1 Computed Tomography and Organs at Risk (OAR)
Computed Tomography (CT) is a long established medical imaging modality utilising

relatively high doses of ionising radiation to diagnose and monitor disease.1 In 2018-19, CT
represented approximately 13% of the total imaging activity undertaken on NHS patients in
England compared to 52% for projection radiography (X-rays).2 Despite its relatively small
proportion in terms of examination numbers, CT contributes almost 70% of the collective
dose for all imaging procedures.3 In the UK, CT doses from typical examinations were
observed to rise marginally between dose surveys conducted in 2003 and 2011.4,5
Like other radio-diagnostic examinations, any reduction in organ dose to the ICRP specified
radiosensitive tissues (see chapter 3) will reduce the risk of cancer induction later in life
within these organs.
Superficial radiosensitive organs of interest that are subject to relatively high doses in CT
include the lens of the eye, breast and thyroid. The eye lens is of interest, not for cancer
induction, but for the potential for cataract formation (see 3.1.3). Some CT scanners permit
axial scans with tilted gantry (of the order of 10-15 degrees) to reduce orbital lens dose by a
factor of 2 without introducing posterior fossa artefacts.10 Some current models of multi-
slice scanners do not allow for a tilted gantry, and while helical scanning with multi-planar
reconstruction avoids artefacts, the accompanying helical overscan along the z-axis may
thus include the eye, resulting in increased dose to the lens.
Superficial radiosensitive organs that lie on or close to the surface of the patient lend
themselves to the potential use of in-plane patient shields. For example, for a CT scan of the
chest, over 40% of the contribution to cancer risk arises from the absorbed dose to the
female breast.11 In-plane contact shielding therefore has the potential to reduce the
radiation risk from the exposure. The benefits and limitations from the use of such shielding
must be carefully considered.
Typical doses to the organs of interest and associated risk, are given in table 9.1.
54
Table 9.1 – Magnitude of organ doses and the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of cancer
incidence from CT examinations
LAR % unless
Organ Effects Examination Typical doses stated Reference
otherwise
Adult CT Brain
Perfusion 81-348 mGy
(12)
Stroke/tumour per study
assessment
Posterior
50-60
Subcapsular
Lens mGy/scan
and cortical CT scan of the NA
(eye) Cumulative
opacities. middle ear.
mean 256
Cataracts Cholesteatoma (9)
mGy
(paediatric
Cumulative
study)
max 970
mGy
Breast 5-10 mGy (13)
CT Thorax
10.6 mGy (14)
CTCA 0.01-0.06 (20
Prospective 2-15 mGy year old
Cancer
gating female)
(15)
CTCA 0.43 (20
Up to 100
Retrospective year old
mGy
gating female)
LAR
0.06% (20 inferred
Thyroid Cancer CT Neck 29-80 mGy year old from mean
female) dose of 55
mGy in (16)
Gonads
Testes 1.4 mGy NA* (14)
CT Abdomen & (0.007 From
Cancer
Ovary Pelvis 13 mGy Beir VII (14)
phase 2)
Gonads
Testes 1.4 mGy 7 in 1 million (14)
Hereditable CT Abdomen &
62 in 1
Ovary effects Pelvis 13 mGy (14)
million
*Note there is no currently accepted risk coefficient for radiation induced testicular cancer.
55
9.1.1 Dose index parameters in CT

In the context of this guidance and consideration of patient shielding in CT, it is worth
introducing some of the standard framework for CT dosimetry. It is a requirement of the
Ionising Radiations (Medical Exposure) Regulations 201717 that all CT operators and
practitioners receive appropriate training to understand the interplay between CT
parameters, image quality and radiation dose.
The volume weighted CT Dose index (CTDIvol) and Dose-Length-Product (DLP)18 are generally
displayed prior to and following, a CT exposure. It is important to recognise that these
dosimetry terms relate to a calculated dose index for exposure incident on defined
phantoms and are not intended to accurately reflect individual patient dosimetry.
Nonetheless, with the current absence of widely adopted patient specific dosimetry
methods, the CTDIvol and DLP are used to represent and audit patient doses in CT. The
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) defined reference phantoms used to
determine the CTDIvol (and therefore DLP) are either 32 cm or 16 cm in diameter and these
are broadly intended to simulate the body or head respectively.
The AAPM have provided conversion factors19,20,21 to correct, if desired, the scanner
reported dosimetry metrics to better match individual patient habitus. In doing so, the so
called “size specific dose estimate” (SSDE) can be obtained. This can be useful especially
when correcting the scanner reported CTDIvol and DLP for paediatric exposures.22
9.2.1 Dose distribution in CT image plane

Ahead of any discussion regarding the potential merit and limitation of patient shielding in
CT it is first necessary to review how the dose distribution in CT differs to projection
radiography.
In projection radiography, the fall-off in absorbed dose along the projection path is
approximately exponential. In CT however, the effect of the beam continuously rotating
around the patient gives, in essence, a summation effect of the dose from thousands of
angular X-ray projections. (Figure 9.2a, 9.3a).
The resultant dose distribution from a CT scan is dependent on the diameter and shape of
the patient or phantom, as well as the beam shaping filter used (commonly known as the
bow tie filter). CT scanners are calibrated so that the effect of the beam shaping filter is
characterised, and accounted for, in the reconstruction process. CT scanners assume that
the patient is positioned centrally and significant deviation from this assumption will
adversely affect both the dose23 and noise distribution24 (Figure 9.2).
56
Figure 9.2a) patient centred b) patient off-centre c) schematic demonstrating x-ray paths for
higher dose and noise (courtesy ImPACT, S. Edyvean).
The beam shaping filter is inherent in the design of the scanner and has a greater thickness
of filter at the edges of the prescribed scan field of view. Modern scanners may have up to
four filters which are automatically selected, generally according to the scan field of view, in
order to optimise the dose distribution across the patient.
For a head sized cylinder, such as the 16 cm CTDI head equivalent phantom, a relatively
uniform distribution is usually found. Theoretically for a smaller size phantom the periphery
dose may be lower than the centre. However, for the larger, body equivalent, 32 cm
phantom, absorbed doses are higher at the periphery of the phantom; roughly by a factor of
two (Figure 9.3a,b).
The exact dose distribution for individual patients will vary markedly from that in the
standard IEC reference phantoms used by the scanner when calculating CTDI vol (Figure 9.3c).
This has to be established by measurement or calculation, both of which can present
challenges.26
57
a)
b)
c)
Figure 9.3
a) schematic view of dose distribution between projection radiography and X-ray CT
(courtesy S. Edyvean)
b) schematic view of dose distribution of a body sized cylinder relative to a head size.
(courtesy ImPACT)
c) simulated illustration of the dose distribution over the cross section of a patient – with and
without tube current modulation (Kalendar25).
58
When assessing the possible dose reduction offered by contact shielding, one approach is to
measure potential dose savings within anthropomorphic reference phantoms (Figure 9.4).
Monte Carlo calculations can also be undertaken on these phantoms. Even so, it must be
recognised the anthropomorphic model will still deviate significantly from real life. The
clinical situation brings in risk, and accuracy, factors that relate to variations in body size and
shape, and patient movement after or during set-up. Patient specific dosimetry calculated
using the CT image itself is possible, but is unlikely to be readily utilised in the near future.27
Figure 9.4 – Examples of use of anthropomorphic phantom to assess organ dose in CT

(courtesy Rob Loader).
9.2.2 The use of shields in CT

More discussion on the use of shields in CT is given in the in-plane and out-of-plane sections
of this chapter. A short summary is included within this section.
It is widely recognised that the optimisation of any CT scan acquisition should be the first
step before any shielding is considered. This is where the most significant gains in dose
saving (and therefore reduction of risk) can be made, without many of the risks and
limitations associated with the use of patient shielding in CT.
The use of shields in CT for in-beam and out of beam shielding has extensive coverage in the
literature.28–43 They have been used in particular for thyroid, breast, eye and abdomen
(fetus). Examples are shown in Figure 9.5. Their use may seem attractive, bearing in mind
the ICRP 2007 recommendations of increased weighting factors for breast tissue in the
calculation of effective dose, as well as growing evidence to suggest a reduced threshold for
cataract induction culminating in a lower dose limit for exposed workers7,8. However, as
discussed in this chapter, the potential for image quality detriment and error must be
considered.
When used for in-beam protection, such as for eyes and breast, the shield is either placed
directly on the anatomy, or with an air gap produced by using air filled foam separators in
order to reduce image artefacts from the high atomic number of the shield material.28
59
Outside beam shielding has primarily been explored for shielding of the fetus in chest CT
examinations where pulmonary embolism is suspected in pregnancy and for protecting the
thyroid.
Materials that have been used in the literature are either lead (whether specific products, or
lead aprons), barium, bismuth, or other specialised construction.13, 28–34
Figure 9.5 Examples of bismuth patient protection shields for breast and thyroid (courtesy Robert
Loader)
9.3.1 In-beam physical shields

In terms of image quality, the introduction of attenuation shields (e.g. bismuth) within the
primary X-ray fan/cone beam of a CT scanner can result in false calibration assumptions and
consequently give rise to associated beam hardening and streak artefacts, particularly
where the shield is placed directly on the patient without stand-off material (see example in
Figure 9.6).
The resultant increase in image noise and overall reduction in clinical image quality could in
some cases be of higher detriment than the same examination at reduced exposure factors
to match the dose saving achieved by the shield to the organs. Often, therefore, a reduction
in CTDIvol can achieve similar dose savings with a comparably small impact on image noise if
parameters are carefully selected.
The use of in-beam physical patient shields poses particular issues when used in automatic
exposure control (AEC) systems. This is addressed in section 9.5 (Influence of shielding on
equipment function and image quality).
60
Figure 9.6 Demonstrating typical artefacts from the use of eye shields, with and without
stand-off material: a) without shield b) with barium shield c) with bismuth shield and no
stand-off d) with bismuth shield and stand-off material. Reproduced with permission from
Huggett et al.28
On reviewing the literature on the use of in-plane patient protection many of the published
papers demonstrate seemingly significant dose savings for a number of applications.
However, this can be at the expense of image quality in terms of noise increase and
artefacts.28
For example dose savings from the use of in-plane patient shields to reduce lens dose can
achieve a lens dose saving of between 20-50%.12,28,32
Dose savings to the thyroid are reported as being between 25 and 40% for the use of thyroid
shields during CT studies of the head and neck.32 The American Thyroid Association
published a policy statement on Thyroid shielding recommending the use of thyroid
shielding where possible to protect the thyroid, noting the high sensitivity to radiation
(especially in children). However, there is no discussion or expansion on the limitations of
the use of such shielding, although much emphasis is placed on the importance of
alternative optimisation strategies, referencing the Image Gently Campaign.35
Breast dose savings from the use of in-plane organ shields have been quoted in the
literature of between 20 and 60%.32 The actual dose saving to the breasts will vary with
shape, size and position.13, 36
The emergence of the use of organ shields for reducing breast dose in CT Coronary
Angiography (CTCA) has coincided with the increased use of CT in the diagnosis and ‘rule-
out’ for coronary artery disease where breast cancer risk to younger women from this
technique is not insignificant. This is particularly the case if the scan is undertaken with
61
retrospectively ECG gated acquisitions;15,36,37 fortunately with modern scanners this

technique is much less frequently used. However, despite the benefit of dose reduction, the
use of contact shields in CTCA has demonstrated adverse effects on image quality with
varied increases in image noise and artefact in the location of the coronary arteries.36 One
study concluded that the use of bismuth breast shielding had no observed effect on the
effects on DNA double strand breaks (implying no radiation damage) yet contributed
significantly to an increase in noise and a decline in image quality.38
The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM)39,40 has released a series of

updated position statements concerning the use of patient shields, advising against their
use in CT in favour of alternative optimisation strategies. The AAPM noted a number of
significant disadvantages:
 The unpredictable and potentially undesirable levels of dose and image quality when
used in conjunction with AEC systems (e.g. tube current modulation).
 Degradation of image quality and accuracy by introducing streak and beam
hardening artefacts.
 Wasted radiation exposure (associated with the requirement in CT to collect
projection data over at least 180°).
The latest position statement40 strongly recommends fetal and gonad shielding should be
discontinued as routine practice, providing negligible or no benefit with the potential to
negatively affect the efficiency of the exam.
While the position statement was focused on the use of bismuth products, the learning
themes can be applied to other materials offering organ dose saving (e.g. barium).
The complex relationships between CT parameters, diagnostic requirements and risk are
best explored and optimised by a multidisciplinary team that should include operators,
practitioners, application specialists and medical physics experts (see 5.7).
9.3.2 In-beam virtual shields (e.g. organ based tube current modulation)
In the evolution of CT technology and with an eye on reduction of unnecessary dose to
radio-sensitive superficial organs such as the breasts and thyroid, CT scanner manufacturers
have incorporated organ based tube current modulation (Figure 9.7). These are often not
available for novel applications (e.g. CTCA due to the necessity for the exposure initiation to
compliment the cardiac gating cycle).
62
a. b .
Figure 9.7 a) Schematic of the organ dose modulation. Tube current is reduced substantially,
or to zero, in the anterior part of the patient and increased in the back of the patient
(courtesy S. Edyvean) b) Dose with Organ Dose Modulation enabled as a percentage of dose
without ODM enabled. Reproduced from Dixon et al 2016.41
In this mode, the tube current is either switched off or reduced over the arc of the rotation
covering the radiosensitive organ. As most radiosensitive organs predominantly lie in an
anterior location relative to the patient centre, a small net dose saving may be realised in
this region. However, depending on the design of the scanner, the tube current may
automatically increase during the rest of the rotation, thus giving higher doses to the
remaining regions. If tube current is not increased on opposite tube locations to account for
the lower tube current over the (normally anterior) arc then image noise will be higher
when using such organ-based tube current modulation.41,42
Actual organ dose saving will depend on the shape, size and location of the organ in relation
to the angular shadow offered by the rotational tube modulation. Another factor to
consider, particularly with breast imaging, is to establish whether the breasts do fall within
the reduced dose region, or whether they are included in an increased tube current region.
While a detailed review of this technology falls outside the scope of this document, it would
be worth considering the use of such technology in favour of in-plane patient shields as
beam hardening artefacts are avoided.41–44 Careful thought must be applied to the overall
benefits of the use of the virtual shield when compared to other optimisation strategies (for
example the use of gantry tilt). If higher noise levels are accepted clinically with the use of
either physical shielding or virtual shields, then the original protocol should be reviewed to
determine the dose saving possible at this new level of image noise, thereby eliminating the
need for shield use.
Prior to enabling organ-based tube-current modulation it is recommended to make a local

scientific evaluation and literature review enabling advantages and limitations to be
63
conveyed to the IR(ME)R practitioner and/or operator. The advice of the Medical Physics
Expert (MPE) should also be sought, as in all situations, when considering the introduction
of new applications and technology.
The scattered radiation extends some considerable distance from the primary beam (Figure
9.8), although the scatter dose is orders of magnitude lower than the primary beam33,45 (at
the level of microgray).
It can be tempting to protect the patient from these low levels of dose by applying outside
beam protection – however, one consideration is that that the use of protection would have
no effect on a large proportion of the scattered radiation, since most of the scattered
radiation arises from scatter from within the body33,46 (see also section 9.6.1.2 and Figures
9.11, 9.12).
Figure 9.8 3D rendered view of the total absorbed dose volume in MSCT as an example of
scatter coverage from just a single axial rotation centered in a body region, using 4 cm wide
beam collimation (GE VCT model), 120 kV tube voltage and adult female anthropomorphic
phantom model. The phantom model is CIRS ATOM Adult Female (Model 702-D) with small
breasts (Model 702-BR-190). (Image Courtesy of Mika Kortesniemi, Calculated with
ImpactMC program, STUK- Radiation Safety Authority & HUS Medical Imaging Center,
Finland)
An additional consideration for the use of outside beam patient protection, compared to in-
beam protection, might also be that there is no image quality detriment, such as beam
hardening and photon starvation artefacts, provided the shield stays away from the primary
64
X-ray field. However, this is not as straightforward as it may seem, especially with helical
beam scanning.
Helical scanning has a requirement to ‘overscan’ beyond the first and last image position in
order to provide enough data to interpolate for those images. This may be more than one
rotation, and, factoring in the beam width (which can be up to 160 mm extending along the
patient axis), even a small amount of ‘overscan’ can extend a considerable non-intuitive
distance beyond the image volume. The placing of out of beam protection beyond the
irradiated volume is therefore not a simple, error free, task.
Some CT systems incorporate adaptive collimation to limit the contribution to patient dose
from the z-axis overscan (Figure 9.9). Even so, this is still not a straightforward scenario, and
there is potential for outside beam patient protection to be added in a position where
image artefacts can be caused.
Figure 9.9 Schematic illustration of dynamic, or adaptive, helical collimation a) Fixed

collimator width for whole of helical scan. b) Adaptive or dynamic beam collimation.
Collimator opens until fully open over reconstruction range, and then closes again at end of
helical scan. (Courtesy S. Edyvean)
For both in-beam and outside beam contact shielding, the radiation science, in terms of
levels of radiation dose and radiosensitivity of organs and the social and psychological
factors, must be considered.
For outside beam protection, therefore, three important factors must be considered when
looking at the science behind this practice. Firstly, the level of scattered radiation dose is
small compared to the primary beam. Secondly, most of the scatter occurs within the
patient and therefore adding surface protection has minimal overall benefit. Thirdly, there is
a risk the shield may slip into the planned image volume and adversely affect the image or
AEC performance.
65
Throughout this chapter, we have identified how image artefacts can arise from photon
starvation and beam hardening effects from the use of in-plane shielding. Out-of-plane
shields could potentially slip into the scan plane or clip the overscan region and adversely
affect the reconstruction of the peripheral scan volume. If shields are not secured
appropriately and then slip during the scan, this will induce a variety of artefacts in the
image, most likely requiring a repeat scan at additional radiation risk to the patient.
One significant limitation of the use of shielding in CT that must be considered is the effect
on dose and image quality if used in conjunction with the Automatic Exposure Control (AEC).
CT technology uses data from the localiser series to derive the scan mA table and in some
cases the peak tube voltage (kVp). Authors have reported the relative merits and limitations
of positioning the shield prior to, or following, the AEC set up.31 An illustration of how the
use of in-plane contact shielding can influence the mA table of a CT scanner is reproduced in
figure 9.10. The 2019 position statement from the AAPM summarises these limitations well
and uses them with other rationale to promote alternatives to shielding in CT when
possible.40
Figure 9.10.31 The effect on tube current by placing the patient shield before or after the
AEC set up. This is for a paediatric anthropomorphic phantom, however the principle
applies for adults also. Tube current generated at each slice level for each scanning
regime: z-axis Auto mA (GE Healthcare) tube current modulation, shield present in scout
image (purple); z-axis Auto mA tube current modulation, shield placed after scout image
was obtained (green); fixed tube current (65 mA) scanning (orange). Slice thickness was 5
mm. White rectangle indicates location of shield.
66
9.6.1 Pregnant individuals and individuals of childbearing potential

The shielding of the fetus when a pregnant patient undergoes a CT examination of the chest
(for example for suspected pulmonary embolism) is a special case of outside beam
protection. The scientific points for consideration are exactly the same. However any
discussions around this may require more sensitive handling.
UK legislation17 requirement is for justification and optimisation of the use of ionising

radiation in all radiological imaging procedures, paying particular attention to pregnant
individuals, and individuals of childbearing potential. As such the use of CT scanning during
pregnancy should be strictly limited to those occasions when it is deemed to be entirely
necessary, and steps should be taken to limit the radiation dose so long as the quality of the
generated images is consistent with the intended purpose of the examination.
Outside beam shielding, has been advocated in CT for protection of the fetus of pregnant
patients undergoing head, neck, chest or extremity CT scans.33,34,47 This is in particular
where chest CT imaging is undertaken for suspected pulmonary embolism.
However a recent literature review article, 2018,47 of the use of out-of-plane high Z-
shielding for fetal dose reduction in CT strongly advocates that there are many optimisation
strategies available and that the current status of CT technology, with correct use of AEC
and iterative reconstruction, allows for significant dose reductions: ‘dose sparing by high Z
garments, albeit coming ‘free of charge’, is only to be expected if no other relevant technical
or clinical parameter might be optimised and if no garment is ever placed in the primary
field of view, including the over-ranging in CT imaging’.47
9.6.1.1 Practice
There is a widespread difference in practice as to the use of abdominal shielding in pregnant
individuals undergoing CT. A survey published by Iball et al in 201034 revealed that the use
of lead shielding in this situation was about 72% in the UK. It was also found to vary
significantly worldwide. The highest usage was in North America (95%) and the lowest usage
in Europe (46%). The key benefit from this survey is that it highlighted the discrepancy in use
at the time.
Chest CT imaging of a pregnant patient may occur very infrequently at any individual
hospital or NHS Trust/Board. The above survey, in 2009, found that 94% of all UK survey
respondents said they perform 10 or fewer scans on pregnant patients per year.34
A disadvantage to using shielding is the discomfort experienced by the patient and the
manual handling issues for the staff. The same survey also reported that a quarter of all
67
respondents said that patients complained about the weight of the shielding and
approximately 20% of all respondents (operators) said that they experienced occupationally
related back pain.
9.6.1.2 Doses and dose reduction

The scatter radiation comprises three components: internal, external and where patient
protection is used – internally reflected back or secondary internal scatter as illustrated in
figure 9.11. In terms of the overall scattered radiation dose, the contribution to the fetus
from internal scatter is about 70%, external scatter about 30%, and minimal from secondary
internal scatter.47
Figure 9.11 Schematic showing the three sources of scattered photons that contribute to the
fetal dose from a chest CT scan. (Reproduced from Iball, Kennedy and Brettle 2008.46)
68
Figure 9.12 Average dose per scan for each section within the abdomen and pelvis of a (non-
pregnant) RANDO phantom for three sets of CT chest scans that were performed. Error bars
represent two standard errors about the mean for each section. The dose values in
microgray are presented on a log scale. (Reproduced from Iball and Brettle 2011.33)
In Figure 9.12 this reduction in estimated fetal dose from scattered radiation with the use of
out-of-plane shields is demonstrated as a function of distance from the inferior edge of a
chest CT scan,33 where patient protection is placed at a fixed position of 6.25 cm from the
inferior edge of the scan. The authors used an anthropomorphic (non-pregnant) phantom
scanned with a routine chest CT examination with a CTDIvol of 11 mGy. Doses to the uterine
region were investigated: unshielded and shielded. Two methods of shielding were
investigated; a new material wrapped around the phantom, and lead aprons positioned
both anteriorly and posteriorly. Their work shows a maximum dose reduction of 35% with
the new material and 42% with the use of lead aprons. This saving would be decreased
further if only the anterior were protected, as is common practice. With no protection, the
scatter dose at this position (30 cm from the inferior edge of the scan) is 100 microgray
(Figure 9.12). Similarly, the study by Grunig et al,48 gives Equivalent dose to the fetus of an
average of 110 (range 3.7–380) microsievert.
These levels of scatter doses and percentage reduction are also presented by Ryckx et al
who undertook a review of publications on abdominal shielding in chest CT of the pregnant
patient, published in 2018.47 From the 11 publications reviewed, uterus doses ranged
between 60 and 660 µGy per examination, and relative dose reductions to the uterus due to
high-Z garments were between 20% and 56%.
69
It is important to note that calculations undertaken by the authors of the review showed
that reducing the scan length by one to three centimetres could potentially reduce uterus
dose up to 24% for chest imaging and even 47% for upper abdominal imaging. These dose
reductions were in the order of those achieved by high-Z garments.
Their conclusion was that efforts should be concentrated on positioning the patient
correctly in the gantry and optimising protocol parameters, rather than using high-Z
garments for out-of-plane uterus shielding.
9.6.2 Paediatrics
Previous discussions surrounding the use of in-plane and out-of-plane shielding also apply to
paediatric CT exposures. However, it is worth highlighting the additional considerations for
paediatrics.
The increased risk due to the age of the paediatric patient (see 3.3.1) has led some authors
to consider the potential advantages of using in and out-of-plane patient shields to reduce
organ doses to the breasts, thyroid and eyes (lens) of children.31
The Royal College of Radiologists recognises the use of in-plane shielding as

“controversial”49 and reiterates the significant limitations previously described; ending their
discussion with the reference to the AAPM position statement.39 Optimisation efforts are
better focused using appropriate AEC modulation or careful selection of protocol for patient
weight/BMI/age. The “Image Gently” alliance has published a great deal of work concerning
the optimisation of paediatric protocols since 2006.35,50 The AAPM Alliance for Quality
Computed Tomography have issued paediatric protocols51 and in the UK the Institute of
Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) are currently undertaking work on optimisation
in paediatric CT (private communication, Worrall M, 2019).
The use of out-of-beam beam shielding for paediatric patients is likely to present more
difficulties than for adults, to ensure any contact shield remains away from the scanned
volume, due to the small patient size and increased risk of patient movement (see 5.6).
A recent study, with a chest CT scan of a paediatric size anthropomorphic phantom,

investigated extent of radiation dose reduction due to the position of the lead apron beyond
the edge of the scan volume.52 With increased distance of the placement of the lead apron,
there was a diminished level of scatter dose reduction. This was extremely small compared
with the overall dose from the examination (0.2% for the lead apron placed 10cm from the
scan volume). Even when placed in close proximity to the scan volume (1 cm distance from
the inferior edge) the percentage dose reduction was only 0.7% of the primary dose in the
image volume. The conclusion of this study was that the small dose reduction gained from
the use of lead shielding over the abdomen and pelvis during chest CT examination of
70
paediatric patients is not likely to outweigh the associated potential risks of artefacts and
infection.
The key recommendation in this chapter is that, in CT, all optimisation approaches should be
considered and applied in the first instance; and the use of patient shielding in CT is not
generally advised.
There is considerable literature demonstrating dose reduction with the use of patient
contact shielding, many of which are on phantom studies; however there is a stronger
argument against the use of patient protection which is also supported in recent statements
and review articles.32,46 The prime reasons against the use of patient protection are; for in-
beam protection, the effects on image quality and interference with automatic exposure
control settings; and, for out-of-beam, the potential for artefacts from misplaced
protection. Considerations for reassurance of the patient or carer, suggest that the use of
patient protection may either reassure, or frighten; and therefore strong, informed,
guidance from the radiology professionals is required, while bearing in mind the perspective
of each patient.
If the IR(ME)R practitioner believes there is a strong argument to justify the use of physical
patient shielding in CT (in-beam or otherwise), the protocol should be carefully optimised in
collaboration with the operator, the medical physics expert and applications specialist.
Ahead of any clinical exposure it is strongly recommended that the diagnostic value of the
CT study is assessed having considered the impact on image quality. Operators will need to
be appropriately trained regarding positioning, sequence of positioning (considering the use
of AEC) and the implications of an inappropriately positioned shield, or one that slips ahead
of or during the scan. Operators should also be trained to be able to answer patient (or
representative) questions relating to the use of the shield and the benefits and limitations.
It is highly likely that similar or even larger dose savings can be achieved by carefully
considering alternative optimisation strategies that will not introduce significant artefact
into the image. Aside from other justification and optimisation strategy that is likely to have
similar (if not greater) impact on organ or fetal dose, the following questions should be
asked prior to any consideration to use patient shields:
1. Why am I considering the use of contact shielding in CT?

While not generally advised, any use of contact shielding should be considered
carefully by a multi-disciplinary team, and written into examination protocols ahead
of use. Its selection simply to reassure the apprehensive patient should be
discouraged as this promotes mixed messages and an exaggeration of radiation risk
71
to the patient and wider community. Instead efforts should concentrate on

explaining the risks from the use of contact shields to the patient.
2. What is the likelihood and consequence of the contact shielding interfering with
the AEC?
If optimised for the given procedure, the AEC is arguably the best tool to optimise
the patient exposure for the intended diagnostic purpose. If the contact shield is
scanned (either deliberately or inadvertently) during the CT localiser series then the
patient exposure is likely to be significantly higher than intended, undoing any small
intended benefit.
3. What is the effect on image quality from the introduction of contact shielding?
In-plane contact shielding leads to photon starvation and beam hardening artefacts
in the CT image (especially where stand-off material is not employed between the
patien–shield interface). Out-of-plane shielding aims to limit external scatter and
extra focal radiation from the tube/collimator assembly to the patient. Any potential
dose saving is a small fraction of the overall scattered dose (external and within the
patient). There is a risk of out-of-plane shielding causing artefacts when placed too
close to, or slipping into, the scanned volume.
The recommendations within this report for Computed Tomography are therefore:
In-plane organ Not recommended Adverse effects on image quality

contact shielding Ensure optimisation by Unpredictable AEC performance - rendering it
(adult and alternative means ineffective, or even resulting in higher dose
children) wherever practicable.
In-plane contact Not recommended Often low dose protocols can achieve the required
shields to protect Ensure optimisation by diagnostic outcome e.g. when assessing shunt
the lens for alternative means patency or ventricle size.
patients where wherever practicable. (If there is a strong basis for protection on an
frequent follow up individual basis, an air gap should be considered.)
head CT likely If considering, a careful review of likely image
quality in line with the diagnostic purpose needs to
be performed.
Out-of-plane organ Not recommended Actual dose savings will be low.

contact shielding Not possible to limit internal scatter.
(adult and Highest savings when shield close to edge of
72
children) scanning volume but more likely to interfere with

AEC if close
An adequate distance to rule out misplacement or
movement of protection then renders the
reduction in external scatter minimal.
Out-of-plane Not recommended Actual dose savings will be low.

contact shielding Not possible to limit internal scatter.
to protect fetus in Highest savings when shield close to edge of
pregnancy scanning volume but more likely to interfere with
AEC if close.
An adequate distance to rule out misplacement or
movement of protection then renders the
reduction in external scatter minimal.
In-plane contact Not recommended Little evidence, careful thought required to

shielding of the positioning.
Gonads Testes are not listed as an ICRP radiosensitive
organ (for cancer incidence)
Adverse effects on image quality for pelvis
examinations (especially if protecting the ovaries).
Hereditable effects associated with typical dose
range are likely to be negligible
Out-of-plane Not recommended Little evidence

contact shielding Not possible to limit internal scatter (especially for
of the Gonads ovaries)
Testes are not listed as an ICRP radiosensitive
organ (for cancer incidence)
Hereditable effects associated with typical dose
range are likely to be negligible
References
1. Elliott, A. et al. Patient radiation dose issues resulting from the use of CT in the UK.
London, Public Health England, 104pp. (COMARE, 16th Report). 2014.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
hment_data/file/343836/COMARE_16th_Report.pdf [Accessed 29.10.2019].
2. NHS England Diagnostic Imaging Dataset Statistical release 18.7.19 (NHS England and
NHS Improvement). Table 1 https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2019/07/Provisional-Monthly-Diagnostic-Imaging-Dataset-
Statistics-2019-07-18.pdf [Accessed 07.08.2019]
73
3. Oatway WB, Jones AL, Holmes S, Watson S and Cabianca T. Ionising Radiation
Exposure of the UK population: 2010 Review. CRCE 026. Chilton, UK: Public Health
England; 2016.
4. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Meeson S and Golding SJ. Doses from computed
tomography (CT) examinations in the UK: 2011 review. PHE-CRCE-013. Chilton, UK:
Public Health England; 2014.
5. Shrimpton PC, Jansen JT and Harrison JD. Updated estimates of typical effective
doses for common CT examinations in the UK following the 2011 national review. Br.
J. Radiol. 2016; 89(1057): 20150346.
6. ICRP Statement on Tissue Reactions. ICRP reference 4825-3093-1464. Commission
Approved Statement 21.4.2011. http://www.icrp.org/docs/2011%20Seoul.pdf
[Accessed 29.10.2019]
8. ICRP, 2012 ICRP Statement on Tissue Reactions / Early and Late Effects of Radiation
in Normal Tissues and Organs – Threshold Doses for Tissue Reactions in a Radiation
Protection Context. ICRP Publication 118. Ann. ICRP 41(1/2).
9. Michel M, Jacob S, Roger G, Pelosse B, Laurier D, Le Pointe HD and Bernier M-O. Eye
lens radiation exposure and repeated head CT scans: A problem to keep in mind. Eur.
J. Radiol. 2012; 81(8): 1896–900.
10. Yeoman LJ, Howarth L, Britten A, Cotterill A and Adam EJ. Gantry angulation in brain
CT: dosage implications, effect on posterior fossa artifacts, and current international
practice. Radiology. 1992; 184(1): 113–6.
11. Huda W and He W. Estimating cancer risks to adults undergoing body CT
examinations. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2012; 150(2): 168–79.
12. Zhang D, Cagnon CH, Villablanca JP, McCollough CH, Cody DD, Stevens DM, Zanki M,
Demarco JJ, Turner AC, Khatonabadi M and McNitt-Gray MF. Peak skin and eye lens
radiation dose from brain perfusion CT based on Monte Carlo simulation. Am. J.
Roentgenol. 2012; 198(2): 412–7.
13. Revel MP, Fitton I, Audureau E, Benzakoun J, Lederlin M, Chabi ML and Rousset P.
Breast dose reduction options during thoracic CT: influence of breast thickness. Am.
J. Roentgenol. 2015; 204(4): W421–8.
14. Wall BF, Haylock R, Jansen TM, Hillier MC, Hart D and Shrimpton PC. Radiation Risks
from Medical X-ray Examinations as a Function of the Age and Sex of the Patient.
Report HPA-CRCE-028. Chilton, UK: Health Protection Agency; 2011.
15. Loader RJ, Gosling O, Roobottom C, Morgan-Hughes G and Rowles N. Practical
dosimetry methods for the determination of effective skin and breast dose for a
modern CT system, incorporating partial irradiation and prospective cardiac gating.
Br. J. Radiol. 2012; 85(1011): 237–48.
16. Huda W, Spampinato MV, Tipnis SV and Magill D. Computation of thyroid doses and
carcinogenic radiation risks to patients undergoing neck CT examinations. Radiation
protection dosimetry. 2013; 156(4): 436–44.
17. The Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IRMER) No 1322 . London:
Department of Health and Social Care. 2017.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1322/made [Accessed 29.10.2019].
74
18. IEC 60601-2-44:2009+AMD1:2012+AMD2:2016 CSV Consolidated version: Medical

electrical equipment - Part 2-44: Particular requirementsfor the basic safety and
essential performance of X-ray equipmentfor computed tomography, Geneva, IEC.
19. Boone J, Strauss K, Cody D, McCollough C, McNitt‐Gray M and Toth T. Size‐Specific
Dose Estimates (SSDE) in Pediatric and Adult Body CT Examination. The Report of
AAPM Task Group 240. AAPM report. College Park, MD: American Association of
Physicists in Medicine; 2011.
20. McCollough C, Bakalyar DM, Bostani M, Brady S, Boedeker K, Boone JM, et al. Use of
Water Equivalent Diameter for Calculating Patient Size and Size-Specific Dose
Estimates (SSDE) in CT: The Report of AAPM Task Group 220. AAPM report. 2014;
2014: 6–23.
21. Boone J, Applegate K, Artz N, Bercha I, Brady S, Cody D, et al. Task Group No. 293 -
Task Group on Size Specific - Dose Estimate (SSDE) for Head CT (TG293). AAPM;
2019.
22. Brady SL and Kaufman RA. Investigation of American Association of Physicists in
Medicine Report 204 size-specific dose estimates for pediatric CT implementation.
Radiology. 2012; 265(3): 832–40.
23. Lambert JW, Kumar S, Chen JS, Wang ZJ, Gould RG and Yeh BM. Investigating the CT
localizer radiograph: acquisition parameters, patient centring and their combined
influence on radiation dose. Br. J. Radiol. 2015; 88(1048): 20140730.
24. Toth T, Ge Z and Daly MP. The influence of patient centering on CT dose and image
noise. Med. Phys. 2007; 34(7): 3093-101.
25. Kalendar. Computed Tomography – Fundamentals. System Technology, Image
Quality Applications. 3rd Edition ed: Publicis Publishing; 2011.
26. Jonas Andersson C et al. Report No. 246 – Estimating Patient Organ Dose with
Computed Tomography: A Review of Present Methodology and Required DICOM
Information. A Joint Report of AAPM Task Group 246 and the European Federation
of Organizations for Medical Physics (EFOMP) (2019) 2019.
27. Fearon T, Xie H, Cheng JY, Ning H, Zhuge Y and Miller RW. Patient-specific CT
dosimetry calculation: a feasibility study. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2011; 12(4): 3589.
28. Huggett J, Mukonoweshuro W and Loader R. A phantom-based evaluation of three
commercially available patient organ shields for computed tomography X-ray
examinations in diagnostic radiology. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2013; 155(2):
161–8.
29. Matsubara K, Kawashima H, Chusin T and Okubo R, editors. How to Optimize
Radiation Dose in Computed Tomography Examinations : Available Methods and
Techniques 2017.
30. Liebmann M, Lüllau T, Kluge A, Poppe B and von Boetticher H. Patient Radiation
Protection Covers for Head CT Scans – A Clinical Evaluation of Their Effectiveness.
Fortschr. Röntgenstr. 186: 1022 – 7.
31. Coursey C, Frush DP, Yoshizumi T, Toncheva G, Nguyen G and Greenberg SB.
Pediatric chest MDCT using tube current modulation: effect on radiation dose with
breast shielding. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008; 190(1): W54–61.
32. Lawrence S and Seeram E. The current use and effectiveness of bismuth shielding in
computed tomography: A systematic review. Radiol Open J. 2017; 2: 7–16.
33. Iball GR and Brettle DS. Organ and effective dose reduction in adult chest CT using
abdominal lead shielding. Br. J. Radiol. 2011; 84(1007): 1020–6.
75
34. Iball GR and Brettle DS. Use of lead shielding on pregnant patients undergoing CT
scans: Results of an international survey. Radiography. 2011; 17(2): 102–8.
35. Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J, Butler PF, Callahan MJ, Coley BD, Farley S, Frush
DP, Hernanz-Schulman M, Jaramillo D, Johnson ND, Kaste SC, Morrison G, Strauss KJ
and Tuggle N. The 'Image Gently' campaign: increasing CT radiation dose awareness
through a national education and awareness program. Pediatr Radiol. 2008; 38(3):
265–9.
36. Einstein AJ, Elliston CD and Groves DW. Effect of bismuth breast shielding on
radiation dose and image quality in coronary CT angiography. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;
19: 100.
37. Faletra FF, D'Angeli I, Klersy C, Averaimo M, Klimusina J, Pasotti E, Pedrazzini GB,
Curti M, Carraro C, Dilberto R, Moccetti T and Auricchio A. Estimates of lifetime
attributable risk of cancer after a single radiation exposure from 64-slice computed
tomographic coronary angiography. Heart. 2010; 96(12): 927–32.
38. Cheezum MK, Redon CE, Burrell AS, Kaviratne AS, Bindeman J, Maeda D, Balmakhtar
H, Pezel A, Wisniewski P, Delacruz P, Nguyen B, Bonner WM and Villines TC. Effects
of Breast Shielding during Heart Imaging on DNA Double-Strand-Break Levels: A
Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Radiology. 2016; 281(1): 62–71.
39. AAPM position statement PP 26-B 2017 (PP26-A 2012) AAPM Position Statement on
the Use of Bismuth Shielding for the Purpose of Dose Reduction in CT scanning
https://www.aapm.org/publicgeneral/bismuthshielding.pdf [Accessed 29.10.2019].
40. AAPM Position Statement on the Use of Patient Gonadal and Fetal Shielding 2019;
PP 32-A; 4/2/2019. https://www.aapm.org/org/policies/details.asp?id=468&type=PP
[Accessed 29.10.2019].
41. Dixon MT, Loader RJ, Stevens G and, Rowles NP. An evaluation of organ dose
modulation on a GE optima CT660-computed tomography scanner. J Appl. Clin. Med.
Phys. 2016; 17(3): 380–91.
42. Wang J, Duan X, Christner JA, Leng S, Grant KL and McCollough CH. Bismuth
shielding, organ-based tube current modulation, and global reduction of tube
current for dose reduction to the eye at head CT. Radiology. 2012; 262(1): 191–8.
43. Lambert JW and Gould RG. Evaluation of a Net Dose-Reducing Organ-Based Tube
Current Modulation Technique: Comparison With Standard Dose and Bismuth-
Shielded Acquisitions. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2016; 206(6): 1233–40.
44. Leidecker C et al. Dose Reduction in Computed Tomography Siemens Perspective. In:
Tack D, Kalra MK and Gevenois PA, editors. Radiation Dose from Multidetector CT
Medical Radiology. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2012.
45. Boone JM. Dose spread functions in computed tomography: A Monte Carlo study.
Med. Phys. 2009; 36(10): 4547–54.
46. Iball GR, Kennedy EV and Brettle DS. Modelling the effect of lead and other materials
for shielding of the fetus in CT pulmonary angiography. Br. J. Radiol. 2008; 81(966):
499–503.
47. Ryckx N, Sans-Merce M, Schmidt S, Poletti P-A and Verdun FR. The use of out-of-
plane high Z patient shielding for fetal dose reduction in computed tomography:
Literature review and comparison with Monte-Carlo calculations of an alternative
optimisation technique. Physica Medica: Eur. J. Med. Phys. 2018; 48: 156–61.
76
48. Grüning T, Mingo RE, Gosling MG, Farrell SL, Drake BE, Loader RJ and Riordan RD.
Diagnosing venous thromboembolism in pregnancy. Br. J. Radiol. 2016; 89(1062):
20160021.
49. Riley P, Ebdon-Jackson S and Bury R. Risks of Radiation Exposure. In: Nicholson T,
editor. Recommendations for cross-sectional imaging in cancer management. 2nd
ed. London: The Royal College of Radiologists; 2014.
https://www.rcr.ac.uk/publication/recommendations-cross-sectional-imaging-
cancer-management-second-edition [Accessed 29.10.2019].
50. Applegate KE and Cost NG. Image Gently: A Campaign to Reduce Children's and
Adolescents' Risk for Cancer During Adulthood. J. Adolesc. 2013; 52(5 Suppl): S93–7.
51. AAPM. The Alliance for Quality Computed Tomography: Pediatric Protocols
https://www.aapm.org/pubs/CTProtocols/default.asp [Accessed 29.10.2019].
52. Yu L, Bruesewitz MR, Vrieze TJ and McCollough CH. Lead Shielding in Pediatric Chest
CT: Effect of Apron Placement Outside the Scan Volume on Radiation Dose
Reduction. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2019; 212(1): 151–6.
77
Chapter 10 Mammography
The use of patient contact shielding is not recommended for mammography (see section
10.4). Where patient contact shielding is being considered, the guidance in these chapters
should be considered.
Only the imaged breast should be subject to the primary X-ray beam and receive an
intentional radiation dose. Therefore in-beam patient protection is not applicable in
mammography.
The radiation dose to all other organs at risk (e.g. the lens of the eye, thyroid and salivary
glands, and bone marrow) is extremely low or negligible and is mainly due to X-rays that
scatter in the breast tissue and enter the trunk through the breast, minimizing the benefit of
using any form of patient contact shield.1,2
Mammography machines are designed to ensure patient safety, incorporating internal

radiation shielding which prevents stray radiation. In general, the use of additional shielding
is unnecessary.
Due to the specific equipment geometry employed, applying protection to organs lying close
to the X-ray field, such as the thyroid or eyes, may interfere with imaging or cause artefacts
that would necessitate repeat imaging of the breast. The additional risk to the patient from
repeat imaging would be much greater than the risk reduction due to the use of a protective
shield. Any applied shielding may also interfere with the radiographer positioning the
patient, where proper positioning is critical to obtaining a high quality mammogram. They
could also inhibit the movement of the equipment when performing oblique views. Any
repeat imaging may also increase the patient’s discomfort and anxiety. Therefore, thyroid
shields should never be used in mammography, since they are not useful and may be very
problematic.3,4,5 The use of other protective shielding during mammography, such as a
leaded garment placed around the lower torso, is also not recommended.
10.3 Special patient groups – pregnant patients
Most studies describe the uterus organ dose as “unmeasurable”. Thus the use of a shield to
cover the abdomen of women undergoing mammography is neither necessary nor
recommended. However, since patient contact shields covering the abdomen would not
78
generally interfere with the imaging, they may be given to a patient at their request, but not
routinely as part of the imaging protocol.3
Patient contact shielding Not recommended No radiation protective shielding

for mammography should be routinely applied to
patients undergoing a
mammographic examination
References
1. Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedantham S, D’Orsi CJ and Karellas A. Radiation

Dose to Organs and Tissues from Mammography: Monte Carlo and Phantom Study.
Radiology. 2008; 246(2): 434–443.
2. Chetlen AL, Brown KL, King SH, Kasales CJ, Schetter SE, Mack JA and Zhu J. Scatter
radiation dose from digital screening mammography measured in a representative
patient population. Am. J. Roent. 2016; 206: 359–365.
3. AAPM, 2011. AAPM response to the use of lead aprons in mammography. American
Association of Physicists in Medicine.
https://www.aapm.org/publicgeneral/LeadApronsMammographyResponse.asp
[Accessed 29.10.2019].
4. ACR, 2011. The ACR and Society of Breast Imaging statement on radiation received
to the thyroid from mammography. April 4, 2011. https://www.sbi-
online.org/portals/0/downloads/DOCUMENTS/pdfs/The%20ACR%20and%20Society
%20of%20Breast%20Imaging%20Statement%20on%20Radiation%20Received%20to
%20the%20Thyroid%20from%20Mammography.pdf [Accessed 29.10.2019].
5. American Thyroid Association, 2013. Policy statement on thyroid shielding during
diagnostic medical and dental radiology. 2013; 1–20. Available from:
https://www.thyroid.org/wp-
content/uploads/statements/ABS1223_policy_statement.pdf [Accessed 29.10.2019].
79
Chapter 11 Shielding in dental radiography
The use of patient contact shielding is not recommended for dental radiography for the
majority of imaging situations (see section 11.7). Where patient contact shielding is being
considered the guidance in these chapters should be taken into account.
11.1 Organs at risk
The organs at risk are those in or near the primary beam, these being the thyroid, lens of
the eye, brain and salivary glands.1–5 The abdomen of a pregnant patient could potentially
be included in the primary beam for the vertical occlusal intraoral radiograph,3 but is
unlikely to be included for any of the other projections.
The thyroid surrounds the trachea, lying in the lower neck (see Figure 11.1) and in the case
of dental radiography is the organ most sensitive to radiation that can be readily shielded3–7
with an appropriately placed thyroid collar. The radio-sensitivity of the thyroid is considered
to decrease as age increases4 (see Figure 3.4).
Figure 11.1 Illustration of thyroid gland location within the neck8
Other organs such as the brain and salivary glands may be included in, or lie close to, the
primary beam. It is likely that shielding of these organs would obscure diagnostic
information. The eyes should lie outside the primary beam, but may receive a dose from
secondary radiation due to their proximity to the anatomy of interest.
80
There is a range of contradictory information regarding the shielding of organs at risk in

dental radiology. The Dental Guidance Notes9 and the European Guidelines4 recommend
that, for adult intra-oral radiography, in-beam shielding should not be necessary where
equipment complies with the UK recommendations for cone length (focus to surface
distance of 200 mm or more for equipment operating at 60 kV or greater9) and shape
(rectangular collimation is recommended limiting the beam at the end of the collimator to
no more than 40 by 50 mm, and ideally to no more than 35 by 45 mm 7,9) and dimensions.
However The American Thyroid Association2 in their policy statement urges consideration of
thyroid shielding for all dental radiographs and The American Dental Association Council 3
and NCRP report 1777 recommends that thyroid collars shall be used where possible.
Rush et al10 demonstrated that the paralleling technique can reduce dose by more than
65% and rectangular collimation can reduce doses by over 45% compared to a round
collimator. A study by Hoogeveen et al11 indicates that when rectangular collimation is
used, thyroid shields only provide a significant dose saving for exposures of the upper
anterior region.12 An example of this is the vertical (vertex) occlusal projection, where a
thyroid shield may reduce thyroid dose by up to approximately 36%.1 It has been shown
that the choice of exposure factors, technique and collimation will reduce doses as much, or
more than the use of a thyroid shield.10–13
While the evidence for the use of a thyroid collar in intra-oral radiography is mixed, a focus
on good technique including using rectangular collimation and beam aiming devices,
paralleling technique and a suitable detector4,7,9,11,13,14 will reduce doses significantly and
any subsequent reduction from use of a thyroid shield will be negligible.
In panoramic, cephalometric and dental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging,
the specification of the equipment should be taken into account when considering the need
for a thyroid collar. Where there is limited collimator adjustment available it may not be
possible to exclude unnecessary thyroid gland from the primary beam – however, careful
attention to correct positioning should minimise this occurrence. Should a thyroid collar be
used, there is potential for this to obscure the required anatomy, if the collar is positioned
lower to avoid this then it is likely to render dose savings negligible.
For panoramic and cephalometric imaging, the use of a thyroid collar is therefore not
recommended. In the case of CBCT, some studies have indicated that a thyroid shield may
reduce the effective dose to the patient6,15,16,17 in the region of approximately 10% to 46%
for large fields of view for paediatric imaging. However, where the field of view may be
suitably restricted and the thyroid not included in the primary beam then the effectiveness
of a thyroid collar would be reduced. A recommendation of the Public Health England
81
(formerly the Health Protection Agency) guidance on the Safe Use of Dental Cone Beam CT 16
states: “As the thyroid gland should not normally be in the primary X-ray beam during dental
CBCT examinations conducted using suitable equipment the working party does not consider
it necessary to recommend the routine use of thyroid shields. Where thyroid shielding is used
it must be positioned so that it does not interfere with the primary beam since this could lead
to significant artefacts rendering the image diagnostically unacceptable.”
While it is generally considered that patient contact shielding should not be used, the
limited information published for dental CBCT indicates that a dose reduction may still be
achieved.6,14 If shielding were to be used it is strongly recommended that an MPE is
consulted first as there is the potential to introduce artefacts to the image should a thyroid
collar enter the useful imaging volume.6
For shielding of the thyroid gland, the discussion in section 11.3 remains relevant due to the
proximity of the thyroid gland to the primary beam. However the primary beam in dental
radiology is highly collimated and radiation dose to areas other than that intended
(including the gonads and the abdomen) is likely to be caused by internally scattered
radiation which externally applied shielding is ineffective against.4,5
Intra-oral units are not routinely equipped with AEC devices. As such the use of shielding is
unlikely to have an effect on the function of these units.
Panoramic, cephalometric and dental CBCT units may be equipped with AEC. Should a
thyroid shield stray into the primary beam it may result in an increase in the dose to the
patient as the X-ray unit increases output to compensate for the high level of attenuation
detected. If prospective (real time) AEC is utilised then a thyroid shield is NOT
recommended. Where the AEC systems utilises a pre-scan to determine the necessary
exposure factors a thyroid shield should NOT be worn during the pre-scan even where the
decision has been taken to use a shield for the imaging portion of the examination.
Pregnancy should not preclude dental radiology in the form of intra-oral, panoramic and
cephalometric examinations.4,9 However, dental radiology is often avoided for psychological
reasons. In the case of intra-oral examinations, shielding of the abdomen should be
considered for a view that may result in the primary beam being directed towards the
abdomen. Use of the paralleling technique should generally avoid this. Efforts should
82
therefore be focussed on good practice (rectangular collimation and maintaining dose as

low as reasonably practicable commensurate with obtaining an image of suitable quality).
For CBCT the secondary radiation dose is highly variable depending on make and model and
design. Shielding would therefore need to be considered for pregnant patients – however,
the clinical indications for CBCT are limited and it may be more appropriate to postpone
imaging until after pregnancy.
For paediatric patients, the thyroid gland is more sensitive than for adults (see Figure 3.4).
As such a thyroid shield may provide some protection. However, in the first instance, the
use of a rectangular collimator should be used and a focus placed on good technique.4
All dental radiology, Not recommended Eyes should not be in the primary
protection of brain, beam. Not possible to shield the other
salivary gland and lens of organs without obscuring required
the eye anatomy
Intraoral radiography Not recommended All European guidance regarding good

practice should be followed. Use of
rectangular collimation, beam aiming
devices, film/detector speed and
paralleling technique to be used first.
Where inclusion of thyroid is
unavoidable, use of patient contact
shielding in consultation with MPE.
Panoramic and Not recommended Care should be taken with patient

cephalometric positioning and selection of
radiography appropriate exposure factors.
Thyroid collar must not be used with

AEC without consultation with MPE
Dental CBCT Not recommended Insufficient evidence for small field of

with the exception of view but effectiveness of a thyroid
large FOV units, shield is likely to be low due to the
where there may be exclusion of the thyroid from the
some benefit. In primary beam and the reduction in
83
which case it is secondary radiation from tighter

recommended that collimation. The use of a thyroid collar
the MPE is consulted may lead to artefacts in the images. An
MPE should be consulted where the
use of a thyroid collar is to be
considered, such as units with a large
FOV.
Pregnant patients Not recommended For intraoral radiography, use of the

parallel technique is recommended. If
X-ray beam MUST be directed towards
the abdomen then patient contact
shielding (e.g. lead apron) covering the
abdomen should be considered.
May be considered for psychological
purposes of reassurance as unlikely to
be detrimental to the diagnostic
quality of the images.
References
1. Worrall M, Menhinick A and Thomson DJ. The use of a thyroid shield for intraoral
anterior oblique occlusal views – a risk-based approach. Dentomaxillofacial
Radiology; 2018; 46(1): 20170140.
2. American Thyroid Association, 2013. Policy statement on thyroid shielding during
diagnostic medical and dental radiology. 2013; 1–20. https://www.thyroid.org/wp-
content/uploads/statements/ABS1223_policy_statement.pdf [Accessed 29.10.2019].
3. American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs and the US. Department of
Health and Human Services. Dental radiographic examinations: recommendations
for patient selection and limiting radiation exposure; 2012.
4. European guidelines on radiation protection in dental radiology. The safe use of
radiographs in dental practice. Radiation Protection, Issue number 136. European
Communities, 2004.
radiology. ICRP Publication 121. Ann. ICRP 42(2).
6. Hidalgo A, Davies J, Horner K, and Theodorakou C. Effectiveness of thyroid gland
shielding in dental CBCT using a paediatric anthropomorphic phantom.
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 2014; 44(3): 20140285.
7. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2019. NCRP report No.
177: Radiation Protection in Dentistry and Oral & Maxillofacial Imaging.
8. Hiles PA, Huges H, Arthur D and Martin CJ. Personal Protective Equipment for
Diagnostic X-ray Use. London, UK: British Institute of Radiology, 2016.
9. Guidance Notes for Dental Practitioners on the Safe Use of X-ray Equipment – NRPB
(2001).
84
10. Rush ER and Thompson NA. Dental radiography technique and equipment: How they
influence the radiation dose received at the level of the thyroid gland. Radiography
2007; 13: 214–220.
11. Hoogeveen RC, Hazenoot B, Sanderink GCH and Berkhout WER. The value of thyroid
shielding in intraoral radiography. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2016; 45(5)
:20150407.
12. Johnson KB, Ludlow JB, Mauriello SM and Platin E. Reducing the risk of intraoral
radiographic imaging with collimation and thyroid shielding. General Dentistry 2014;
62(4): 34–40.
13. Holroyd J. The use of thyroid shields in dental radiography. European ALARA
Network. Newsletter 37, February 2016. https://www.eu-
alara.net/images/stories/Newsletters/Newsletter37/the%20use%20of%20thyroid%2
0shields%20in%20dental%20radiography%20v4%20%20external%20pub.pdf
[Accessed 17.06.2019].
14. Isaacson KG, Thorn AR, Atack NE, Horner K and Whaites E. Guidelines for the use of
radiographs in clinical orthodontics. British Orthodontics Society, 2015.
https://www.bos.org.uk/Portals/0/Public/docs/General%20Guidance/Orthodontic%
20Radiographs%202016%20-%202.pdf [Accessed 29.10.2019].
15. Cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology (Evidence-based guidelines).
Radiation Protection Number 172. SEDENTEXCT project 2011.
16. HPA, 2010. Guidance on the Safe Use of Dental Cone Beam CT (Computed
Tomography) Equipment. Health Protection Agency, HPA-CRCE-010 2010.
17. Tsiklakis K, Donta C, Gavala S, Karayianni K, Kamenopoulou V and Hourdakis CJ.
Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose cone beam CT. Eur J Radiol
2005; 56: 413–17.
85
Chapter 12 Glossary
This document follows the UK legislation definitions1,2 which are reproduced below and
compared with definitions in the EC Basic Safety Standards Directive3 (BSSD) and the IAEA
Basic Safety Standards4 (BSS). These terms are not job titles but refer to the role and
responsibilities undertaken.
Operator
“Operator” means any person who is entitled, in accordance with the employer’s
procedures, to carry out practical aspects including those to whom practical aspects have
been allocated, medical physics experts and, except where they do so under the direct
supervision of a person who is adequately trained, persons participating in practical aspects
as part of practical training;
In the EC BSSD this equates to: individuals entitled to carry out practical aspects of medical
radiological procedures.
Practitioner
It is important not to confuse the term IR(ME)R Practitioner with other uses of the term
practitioner in the medical field. Under the UK legislation:
“Practitioner” means a registered health care professional who is entitled in accordance with
the employer’s procedures to take responsibility for an individual exposure;
This is similar to the EC BSSD definition: "practitioner" means a medical doctor, dentist or
other health professional who is entitled to take clinical responsibility for an individual
medical exposure in accordance with national requirements;
This is assumed equivalent to the IAEA BSS ‘radiological medical practitioner’. Where a
radiological medical practitioner has assumed responsibility for protection and safety in the
planning and delivery of the medical exposure …
Medical Physics Expert, MPE

MPE means an individual or a group of individuals, having the knowledge, training and
experience to act or give advice on matters relating to radiation physics applied to medical
exposure, whose competence in this respect is recognised by the competent authority;
which in the UK is the Secretary of State. This is identical to the EC BSSD definition.
This is assumed equivalent to the IAEA BSS ‘Medical Physicist’. Defined as a health
professional with specialist education and training in the concepts and techniques of
applying physics in medicine and competent to practise independently in one or more of the
subfields (specialties) of medical physics. Where the competence of persons is normally
86
assessed by the State by having a formal mechanism for registration, accreditation or

certification of medical physicists in the various specialties (e.g. diagnostic radiology,
radiation therapy, nuclear medicine).
Referrer
“Referrer” means a registered health care professional who is entitled in accordance with
the employer’s procedures to refer individuals for exposure to a practitioner.
This is similar to the EC BSSD definition: “Referrer” means a medical doctor, dentist or other
health professional who is entitled to refer individuals for medical radiological procedures to
a practitioner, in accordance with national requirements;
This is assumed equivalent to the IAEA BSS ‘referring medical practitioner’.
Registered health care professional

“Registered health care professional” in the UK, means a person who is a member of a
profession regulated by a body mentioned in section 25(3) of the National Health Service
Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002(a).
References

(No. 1322).
[accessed 29.10.2019].
(Northern Ireland) 2018. Statutory Instrument 2018 No. 17.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2018/17/contents/made [accessed 29.10.2019].
3. European Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom 2013 laying down basic safety
standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising
radiation. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2014:013:0001:0073:EN:PDF
[accessed 29.10.2019].
4. International Atomic Energy Agency. Radiation protection and safety of radiation
sources: International basic safety standards. IAEA safety standards. General safety
requirements Part 3 No. GSR Part 3 (2014). https://www-
pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1578_web-57265295.pdf [accessed
29.10.2019].
87

Final Patient Shielding Guidance.r1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Patient Shielding Guidance.r1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Patient Shielding Guidance.r1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidance on using shielding on

patients for diagnostic radiology

Guidance on using shielding on patients for diagnostic radiology

Working Party Members

For queries relating to this document, please contact [email protected].

About The British Institute of Radiology

British Institute of Radiology

Published March 2020

7.3 In-beam protection (Primary beam)

Therefore a working party consisting of representatives from various UK radiological

The recommended cessation of the widespread practice of applying patient contact

This guidance is intended to cover radiation protection applied directly to patients

Chapter 2 General requirements for patient contact shielding

2.1 Radiation safety culture

2.2 Context for applying shielding

2.3 Medical Device and product marking

2.4 Recommendations for local practice

The recommended cessation of the widespread practice of applying patient contact

Scenario Recommendation Comments

Patient contact shielding in Not recommended Anticipate very few specific

1. UK Government, 2017. The Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2017

3. European ALARA Network. Optimization of Radiation Protection. ALARA: A Practical

Chapter 3 Radiation dose and risk

3.1 Historical perspective

3.1.1 Organs at risk (OAR)

Table 3.1 Changes in the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)

Colon 0.12 0.12

Lung 0.12 0.12 0.12

Stomach 0.12 0.12

Gonads 0.25 0.20 0.08

Bladder 0.05 0.04

Liver 0.05 0.04

Oesophagus 0.05 0.04

Thyroid 0.03 0.05 0.04

Bone surface 0.03 0.01 0.01

Salivary glands 0.01

Skin 0.01 0.01

Sub Total 0.70 0.95 0.88

Remainder 0.30 0.05 0.12

3.1.2 Heritable effects

3.1.3 Eye lens risk

3.2 Stochastic and hereditary risk

3.3 Introduction to levels of risk

<0.1 <1 in 1 million Negligible Radiographs: Chest, Limbs,

0.1 to 1.0 <1 in 100,000 Minimal Radiographs: Head, neck,

1.0 to 10 <1 in 10,000 Very low Fluoroscopy contrast studies;

10 to 100 <1 in 1,000 Low CT thorax, abdomen and

≥100s <1 in 100 Moderate Multiple procedures

3.3.1 Paediatric risk

3.4 Optimisation and applying the ALARP principle

15. Coates R. International Radiation Protection Association, President’s Blog. IRPA,

Chapter 4 Sources of radiation exposure

Effective use of protective equipment requires a clear understanding of the sources of

4.1 Primary radiation

4.2 Secondary radiation

Patients may be completely unaware of these sources. Conversely, they may be

Figure 4.2 Secondary sources of radiation present during projection radiography.

4.2.1 Tube housing radiation leakage

4.2.2 Scatter from tube, filtration and housing