Evaluating the relative status of health and safety programs for minority academic and research institutions

A variety of occupational hazards are indigenous to academic and research institutions, ranging from traditional life safety concerns, such as fire safety and fall protection, to specialized occupational hygiene issues such as exposure to carcinogenic chemicals, radiation sources, and infectious microorganisms. Institutional health and safety programs are constantly challenged to establish and maintain adequate protective measures for this wide array of hazards. A unique subset of academic and research institutions are classified as historically Black universities which provide educational opportunities primarily to minority populations. State funded minority schools receive less resources than their non-minority counterparts, resulting in a reduced ability to provide certain programs and services. Comprehensive health and safety services for these institutions may be one of the services compromised, resulting in uncontrolled exposures to various workplace hazards. Such a result would also be contrary to the national health status objectives to improve preventive health care measures for minority populations.^ To determine if differences exist, a cross-sectional survey was performed to evaluate the relative status of health and safety programs present within minority and non-minority state-funded academic and research institutions. Data were obtained from direct mail questionnaires, supplemented by data from publicly available sources. Parameters for comparison included reported numbers of full and part-time health and safety staff, reported OSHA 200 log (or equivalent) values, and reported workers compensation experience modifiers. The relative impact of institutional minority status, institution size, and OSHA regulatory environment, was also assessed. Additional health and safety program descriptors were solicited in an attempt to develop a preliminary profile of the hazards present in this unique work setting.^ Survey forms were distributed to 24 minority and 51 non-minority institutions. A total of 72% of the questionnaires were returned, with 58% of the minority and 78% of the non-minority institutions participating. The mean number of reported full-time health and safety staff for the responding minority institutions was determined to be 1.14, compared to 3.12 for the responding non-minority institutions. Data distribution variances were stabilized using log-normal transformations, and although subsequent analysis indicated statistically significant differences, the differences were found to be predicted by institution size only, and not by minority status or OSHA regulatory environment. Similar results were noted for estimated full-time equivalent health and safety staffing levels. Significant differences were not noted between reported OSHA 200 log (or equivalent) data, and a lack of information provided on workers compensation experience modifiers prevented comparisons on insurance premium expenditures. Other health and safety program descriptive information obtained served to validate the study's presupposition that the inclusion criteria would encompass those organizations with occupational risks from all four major hazard categories. Worker medical surveillance programs appeared to exist at most institutions, but the specific tests completed were not readily identifiable.^ The results of this study serve as a preliminary description of the health and safety programs for a unique set of workplaces have not been previously investigated. Numerous opportunities for further research are noted, including efforts to quantify the relative amount of each hazard present, the further definition of the programs reported to be in place, determination of other means to measure health outcomes on campuses, and comparisons among other culturally diverse workplaces. ^

A simplified protocol for the treatment of acute radiation overexposures from sources external to the body

When compared to other types of occupational injuries, radiation overexposure events are somewhat rare, so health care providers may not be familiar with the actual clinical care to be provided when such an event occurs. Radiation overexposure treatment decisions are predicated on the amount of radiation dose received, which is a value many health care providers may not have the knowledge or expertise to either calculate or even estimate. Even the different units of measure for radiation exposure and dose received can be a source of confusion. The prompt treatment of radiation overexposure victims could be enhanced and facilitated through the creation of a single, simple protocol that consists of the various means of dose measurement and estimation, correlated to the corresponding appropriate clinical care measures. This culminating experience will assemble essential information currently maintained in disparate references to create a single, simplified protocol to facilitate the treatment of victims of acute external radiation overexposure. ^

Evaluation of PRESAGE® dosimeters for brachytherapy sources and the 3D dosimetry and characterization of the new AgX100 125I seed model

With continuous new improvements in brachytherapy source designs and techniques, method of 3D dosimetry for treatment dose verifications would better ensure accurate patient radiotherapy treatment. This study was aimed to first evaluate the 3D dose distributions of the low-dose rate (LDR) Amersham 6711 OncoseedTM using PRESAGE® dosimeters to establish PRESAGE® as a suitable brachytherapy dosimeter. The new AgX100 125I seed model (Theragenics Corporation) was then characterized using PRESAGE® following the TG-43 protocol. PRESAGE® dosimeters are solid, polyurethane-based, 3D dosimeters doped with radiochromic leuco dyes that produce a linear optical density response to radiation dose. For this project, the radiochromic response in PRESAGE® was captured using optical-CT scanning (632 nm) and the final 3D dose matrix was reconstructed using the MATLAB software. An Amersham 6711 seed with an air-kerma strength of approximately 9 U was used to irradiate two dosimeters to 2 Gy and 11 Gy at 1 cm to evaluate dose rates in the r=1 cm to r=5 cm region. The dosimetry parameters were compared to the values published in the updated AAPM Report No. 51 (TG-43U1). An AgX100 seed with an air-kerma strength of about 6 U was used to irradiate two dosimeters to 3.6 Gy and 12.5 Gy at 1 cm. The dosimetry parameters for the AgX100 were compared to the values measured from previous Monte-Carlo and experimental studies. In general, the measured dose rate constant, anisotropy function, and radial dose function for the Amersham 6711 showed agreements better than 5% compared to consensus values in the r=1 to r=3 cm region. The dose rates and radial dose functions measured for the AgX100 agreed with the MCNPX and TLD-measured values within 3% in the r=1 to r=3 cm region. The measured anisotropy function in PRESAGE® showed relative differences of up to 9% with the MCNPX calculated values. It was determined that post-irradiation optical density change over several days was non-linear in different dose regions, and therefore the dose values in the r=4 to r=5 cm regions had higher uncertainty due to this effect. This study demonstrated that within the radial distance of 3 cm, brachytherapy dosimetry in PRESAGE® can be accurate within 5% as long as irradiation times are within 48 hours.