Survey of radiotherapy resources in Jiangsu province in 2020
10.3760/cma.j.cn112271-20221118-00450
- VernacularTitle:2020年江苏省放射治疗资源调查
- Author:
Shengri LI
1
;
Hao QI
;
Xiang DU
;
Jin WANG
Author Information
1. 江苏省疾病预防控制中心放射防护所，南京 210009
- Keywords:
Jiangsu province;
Radiotherapy;
Radiotherapy frequency;
Survey
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection
2023;43(5):362-365
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the current situation of radiotherapy resources in medical institutions at all levels in Jiangsu province.Methods:The survey was initiated with the subproject " Medical Radiation Protection Monitoring" of the National Key Occupational Disease Monitoring Project. Unified electronic questionnaires were designed based on the survey content, distributed and recycled through the network, to investigate all medical institutions (excluding military hospitals) conducting radiotherapy in Jiangsu province in 2020.Results:By the end of 2020, there were 113 medical institutions (excluding military hospitals) carrying out radiotherapy in Jiangsu Province, including 86 hospitals Level Ⅲ, 23 hospitals Level Ⅱ, 2 hospitals Level I, and 2 unrated hospitals, with the largest number of hospitals in northern Jiangsu. A total of 2 033 workers were engaged in radiotherapy, with inclusion of 319 medical physicists, accounting for 15.69% of the total, slightly higher than the national average. There were 195 sets of radiotherapy equipment, including 153 medical linear accelerators and 31 afterloading units, 9 Gamma Knife and 2 60Co therapeutic machines, respectively. The number of accelerators per million population was 1.80, more than nationwide average, 1.45, in 2018. The annual number of patients treated with radiotherapy was 92 441, with an annual treatment frequency of 1.090 per 1 000 population, lower than international health-care level I. Conclusions:Radiotherapy resources in Jiangsu province exceed the national average, but may not fully meet the medical requirements of existing patients, and there is still a significant gap from international health-care level I.
