Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Future Healthcare Journal

  • FHJ Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About FHJ
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Future Healthcare Journal

futurehosp Logo
  • FHJ Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About FHJ
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Letters to the Editor

Alice Wood
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/fhj.Let.9.1.1
Future Healthc J March 2022
Alice Wood
Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK
Roles: Cardiology ST6
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Radiation and pregnancy

Editor – I read Al-Hadithy et al's article with interest; it raises many important points about the wellbeing of pregnant staff in the NHS and, in particular, regarding the impact of shift work in early pregnancy when women are often still working full shift rotas.1

I am, however, concerned about the authors' conclusions regarding working with radiation in pregnancy. The authors accept that within the limit of 1 mSv there is no measurable increase in adverse pregnancy outcomes (as has been demonstrated in many studies globally).2,3 However, despite this, they suggest that women should avoid working with radiation from conception, largely because of a theoretical risk that the 1 mSv limit might be reached within the first trimester. We should be practising evidence-based medicine and this recommendation is not based on evidence. This decreases the credibility of their other recommendations, for which there is indeed evidence. Furthermore, it is likely to create an unjustified fear of working with radiation, causing anxiety to those who have continued to work with it, and it will significantly limit work and training opportunities for healthcare professionals in many fields. Fear of radiation is known to put women off already male dominated fields, such as cardiology, we should not be fuelling such fear without a compelling reason.4

Occupational radiation exposure is tightly regulated by the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations. As soon as an employee announces a pregnancy, the employer is obliged to monitor dose and make sure that the legal dose limit is not exceeded. A pregnant employee should, therefore, report her pregnancy at the earliest possible opportunity in order to be monitored in this way. Employees who regularly work with radiation will usually be monitored already and will know if they have unusually high doses; in addition, it is possible to request one's own monitoring reports pre-pregnancy to be sure that they are not close to the limit.

It is clear that best radiation protection practice should be followed and that pregnant employees should not be working with radiation without optimal radiation protection and monitoring; however, this does not mean that that they should stop working with radiation altogether. With good practice, this can be done safely and a lot of work on this has been done in cardiology, a field with particularly high radiation exposure.5

I hope the authors will consider revising their recommendations to suggest that employers should fulfil their legal obligation to monitor and protect pregnant employees whose work involves radiation exposure, rather than preventing pregnant employees from performing this part of their role.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2022. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Al-Hadithy N
    , Nicholas R, Knight K, et al. Policy and pregnancy: the impact on working families in the NHS. FHJ 2021;8:e655–9.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Best PJM
    , Skelding KA, Mehran R, et al. SCAI consensus document on occupational radiation exposure to the pregnant cardiologist and technical personnel. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2011;77:232–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Velázquez M
    , Pombo M, Unzué L, et al. Radiation exposure to the pregnant interventional cardiologist. Does it really pose a risk to the fetus? Rev Esp Cardiol 2017;70:606–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Capranzano P
    , Kunadian V, Mauri J, et al. Motivations for and barriers to choosing an interventional cardiology career path: results from the EAPCI Women Committee worldwide survey. EuroIntervention 2016;12:53–9
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. British Cardiovascular Society Working Group on: Improving resources and support for cardiology trainees and consultants during pregnancy, fertility treatment, pregnancy loss & parental leave
    . Resources for pregnant cardiologists, their partners and supervisors. British Cardiovascular Society, 2021. www.britishcardiovascularsociety.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/37703/BCS-2021-Resources-for-pregnant-cardiologists-their-partners-and-supervisors-Aug21.pdf
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Letters to the Editor
Alice Wood
Future Healthc J Mar 2022, 9 (1) 96; DOI: 10.7861/fhj.Let.9.1.1

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Letters to the Editor
Alice Wood
Future Healthc J Mar 2022, 9 (1) 96; DOI: 10.7861/fhj.Let.9.1.1
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Radiation and pregnancy
    • References
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • What is the impact of COVID-19 on complaints against doctors?
  • The significance of the gut microbiome in post-COVID-19 gastrointestinal symptoms
  • Optimisation of strategies for management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
Show more Letters to the editor

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home

Other Services

  • Advertising
futurehosp Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians