Research and Teaching (HERT) Sectors in the UK: An Initial - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Status of Radiation Safety (RS) Culture within the Higher Education, Research and Teaching (HERT) Sectors in the UK: An Initial Assessment

Coldwell T., Cole P., Hunter J.*, Dorling S., Mott G., Murdock C., Whitcher R., Willis S., Yates L. UK Working Group on Radiation Safety Culture in HERT Sectors * Presenting author

1 of 23

Objectives

To gauge the state of radiation safety (RS) culture within the Higher Education, Research and Teaching (HERT) sectors in the UK with a view to informing the development of strategies and tools to improve Radiation Safety culture in these sectors.

2 of 23

Methods

• Survey Design

– Non-onerous – 15 minutes to complete

• 32 questions grouped into 6 sections

– Participant roles – Training – Incident management – Personal dosimetry – Personal protection and PPE – General awareness

• Attempted to cover both IR and NIR aspects

3 of 23

Dissemination

• Online Survey tool

– Easy to use and supports collaborative data analysis with a range to cross-referencing tools – Survey questionnaire hosted by JISC (UK Academic Network) – Anonymous and secure

– Cost effective membership at an organisational level

• Link to survey ‘promoted’ via:

– Committee for Liaison with IRPA and Partner Societies (CLIPS) – UK RP professional Partner Societies websites – Announcements at conferences – Word of mouth

• Inclusive of all types of radiation safety stakeholder

4 of 23

Organisation

Total number of respondents = 385

90.6 3.4 2.3 2.9

% of Respondents

University Government Body Research Company Other

5 of 23

Staff Group

43.9 11.4 19.0 22.9 2.9

% of Respondents

Academic staff / researcher Student Professional services Technical support Other

‘Other’ included theatre nurses, site safety managers, and general lab managers 6 of 23

Radiation Sources Used

2.9 32.2 32.7 43.1 36.9 40.0 60.3 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Other Other NIR Sources LASERs X-Ray Machines Sealed Sources Radioactive Waste Unsealed Radionuclides % of Respondents

‘Other’ included neutron accelerators, exotic particle beams, cyclotrons etc.

7 of 23

Percentage of Time Spent Working with Radiation

52.0 14.4 12.3 11.0 8.6 1.8

% of Respondents

0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-100% Occasional Access to Radiation Areas Never

8 of 23

Time Spent on Initial Radiation Safety Training

65.85% 18.29% 7.93% 6.10% 1.83% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 4-5 Days >5 Days % of Respondents

Academic staff / researcher

32.84% 19.40% 16.42% 10.45% 20.90% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 4-5 Days >5 Days % of Respondents

Professional services

82.50% 15.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 4-5 Days >5 Days % of Respondents

Student

55.17% 22.99% 12.64% 3.45% 5.75% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 4-5 Days >5 Days % of Respondents

Technical support

9 of 23

Initial Radiation Safety Training

4.6 5.5 15.9 3.6 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Technical Support Professional services Student Academic staff / researcher % of Respondents

Online Only

10 of 23

Refresher Training

12.5 5.5 13.6 7.7 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Technical support Professional services Student Academic staff / researcher % of Respondents

Online Only

11 of 23

Hours per Year of Refresher Training

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% % of Respondents Hours per Year

Academic staff / researcher

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% % of Respondents Hours per Year

Student

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% % of Respondents Hours per Year

Professional services

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% % of Respondents Hours per Year

Technical support

12 of 23

Working Safely

Do you feel you have had adequate radiation protection training to enable you to work safely?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IR NIR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unsealed Radionuclides Waste Sealed sources X-Ray LASERs Other NIR Percentage of Respondents who said No!

13 of 23

Inadequate Radiation Safety Training…

4.6 5.5 11.4 3.0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Technical support Professional services Student Academic staff / researcher % of Respondents

…to feel that I can work safely

14 of 23

Radiation Incident

8.1 6.9 27.3 4.8 5 10 15 20 25 30 Technical support Professional services Student Academic staff / researcher % of Respondents

I often feel concerned that I will be involved in a Radiation Incident

8.1 19.7 6.8 4.2 5 10 15 20 25 30 Technical support Professional services Student Academic staff / researcher % of Respondents

I DO NOT consider my organization to have adequate contingency plans

15 of 23

Importance of Radiation Safety

8.1 2.9 18.6 5.5 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Technical support Professional services Student Academic staff / researcher % of Respondents

I DO NOT feel I have an adequate knowledge of the radiation dose and risks to staff / students

2.3 1.4 14.0 6.0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Technical support Professional services Student Academic staff / researcher % of Respondents

I DO NOT know where to find my organisation’s policies and procedures (such as Local Rules, Risk Assessments, etc.) relating to radiation work 16 of 23

Radiation Safety Culture Questions

The next 3 slides show results from Safety Culture related questions.

17 of 23

Radiation Safety Culture Questions

20.9 29.3 22.6 21.8 32.9 20.5 19.2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 IR Combined NIR Combined Overall Technical support Professional services Student Academic staff / researcher % of Respondents

I feel that radiation protection in my organisation is NOT considered equally important as my other work

18 of 23

Radiation Safety Culture Questions

31.3 28.3 32.4 22.6 9.7 54.6 41.3 10 20 30 40 50 60 IR Combined NIR Combined Overall Technical support Professional services Student Academic staff / researcher % of Respondents

I DO NOT feel involved in planning changes to radiation protection procedures that affect me

19 of 23

Radiation Safety Culture Questions

11.2 11.5 10.8 11.5 13.9 15.9 7.7 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 IR Combined NIR Combined Overall Technical support Professional services Student Academic staff / researcher % of Respondents

I DO NOT have enough time to get my work done safely

20 of 23

Conclusions

• Compliance with the wearing of dosimetry and PPE is good.

However, we found:

• 1. Ineffective initial training courses are being delivered.
• 2. Poor contingency plans and few rehearsal exercises being carried out.
• 3. Lack of consultation and communication of Local Rules etc.
• 4. Low importance given to Radiation Safety compared to other work.

21 of 23

Preliminary Recommendations

• Management awareness

– Standard briefing packs – Training sessions, including the use of incident case studies

• Training

– Focus on students to reduce concerns of a lack of knowledge, both of Radiation Safety and local knowledge – Introduce more practical aspects to training particularly initial training – E-refresher packages with tracked participation and backed up with ‘quizzes’ – More, and improved methodology for non-ionising radiation safety training

• Improved methods of communication

– Intranet discussion forums – Newsletters and RPS blogs – Direct feedback / suggestions / incident reporting forms – Consultation groups when rules / procedures are being revised

• Embrace opportunities offered by new computer-mediated technologies e.g.

electronic devices, Twitter, simulations, etc.

22 of 23

Acknowledgements

The Higher Education Research and Teaching (HERT) Working Group would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank both UK Societies:

Association of University Radiation Protection Officers The Society for Radiological Protection

for assisting in and promoting the survey and this work. We would also like to thank colleagues in the radiation community who disseminated and / or completed the survey, which is the basis

• f this work.

23 of 23