Radiation safety of dentomaxillofacial radiology in Finland: Reported abnormal irradiation-related incidents during 2012–2022

• Published in: Radiography (London, England. 1995) England. 1995), 2024-08, Vol.30 (5), p.1265-1271
• Main Authors: Suuronen, M., Lehtonen, L., Autti, T.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Dentistry; Dentomaxillofacial radiology; Incident reporting; Patient safety
• ISSN: 1078-8174; 1532-2831; 1532-2831
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2024.06.017

This study evaluates adverse events (AEs) in dentomaxillofacial radiology (DMFR) in Finland, including their quantity, nature, and outcomes. It also compares reporting activity between public and private healthcare organizations, as they share same legal obligations to report AEs. Two-thirds of dental images are taken in public, the rest in private healthcare. In Finland, radiation-related AEs are reported to the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK). We categorized DMFR-related AEs by nature, outcome, and imaging modality. We also submitted a questionnaire to STUK to gather information on their observations and remarks made during inspections of establishments providing dental imaging services. During 2012–2022, STUK received reports of 1343 DMFR-related AEs, mostly causing patient harm (92.9%) leading almost always to excessive radiation doses (99.7%). Private healthcare reported most AEs (65.2%), with municipal institutions reporting the remainder (34.8%). Intraoral-related AEs (20.0%) slightly outnumbered panoramic-related ones (18.7%), but the majority (56.7%) didn't specify the imaging modality. CBCT-related incidents were least reported (4.5%). During STUK's inspections, remarks mostly concerned deficiencies in practical quality assurance (31.3%) or technical quality assurance (32.9%). DMFR-related AEs may be underreported despite legal obligations, with most stemming from human error, highlighting the need to enhance patient safety culture. There's a notable reporting gap between private and public healthcare providers relative to the number of dental radiographs conducted. Organizational deficiencies in practical and technical quality assurance underscore the importance of ongoing education, as well as monitoring by STUK. Enhancing patient safety culture in dentistry, including dentomaxillofacial radiology, demands customized multiprofessional development, as unaltered patient safety procedures from medicine and secondary care may not align with dentistry's requirements.