RESUMO
Introduction: Increasing use of ionizing radiation in hospitals exposes healthcare workers to health risks, therefore dosimetric surveillance and anti-radiation personal protective equipment are essential. However, low perception of risk has a negative impact on compliance. Objectives: To qualitatively characterize exposure to ionizing radiation and the compliance with anti-radiation personal protective equipment and personal dosimeters by workers, at a university hospital in Portugal. To investigate the impact of attending health examinations or participating in training activities on this compliance. Methods: Cross-sectional study design administering a questionnaire constructed by the authors to all healthcare workers exposed to ionizing radiation (n = 708). Results: A total of 295 workers completed the questionnaire. They worked in 16 different services using eight different types of ionizing radiation-emitting equipment, the most common of which were fluoroscopes. Lead aprons and thyroid protectors were the anti-radiation personal protective equipment with greatest compliance (61.7 and 55.6%, respectively), while fewer respondents used protective glasses (8.1%) and lead gloves (0.7%). Regular use of a dosimeter was reported by 78.3% of workers and use was associated with participation in training and with attending health examinations. The most frequent reasons given for not wearing anti-radiation personal protective equipment were unavailability (glasses and gloves), presence of a protective barrier, and discomfort. The most common reason for not using a dosimeter was forgetting to do so. Conclusions: Workers who attended training and those who attended health examinations were more compliant with use of dosimeters, indicating that these are useful strategies for improving workers' compliance with radiation protection measures.
RESUMO
Introduction: Healthcare professionals are among the main risk groups for novel coronavirus disease (COVID 19). The identification of respiratory symptoms is important in the clinical assumption of infection, but it may be asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic. Objectives: To compare the proportion of professionals with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with the proportion of positive asymptomatic professionals with high-risk contact; and to identify respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms of professionals with suspected COVID-19 and the proportion of those who tested positive for SARS CoV-2. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study that retrospectively analyzed clinical records of health professionals who spontaneously sought the occupational health service of a university hospital center from March to August 2020 for presenting with symptoms and/or for having had high risk contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19 and who, in this context, underwent the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2. Results: COVID-19 was confirmed in 27 of the 420 symptomatic professionals vs. three of the 193 asymptomatic professionals (p = 0.009). Of the 371 professionals with respiratory symptoms, 19 were positive for COVID-19 vs. 11 among the 242 with no respiratory symptoms (p = 0.750). Nasal congestion and rhinorrhea were the respiratory symptoms with the highest proportion of positive cases (11.43 and 8.97%, respectively). Conclusions: Although COVID-19 is typically associated with respiratory symptoms, not all these symptoms were predictive of disease. It becomes crucial to value mild symptoms among healthcare professionals.