Radiographer reporting in the UK: Is the current scope of practice limiting plain film reporting capacity?

yesObjective: To update knowledge on individual radiographer contribution to plain-film reporting workloads; to assess whether there is scope to further increase radiographer reporting capacity within this area. Methods: Reporting radiographers were invited to complete an online survey. Invitations were posted to every acute National Health Service trust in the UK whilst snowball sampling was employed via a network of colleagues, ex-colleagues and acquaintances. Information was sought regarding the demographics, geographical location and anatomical and referral scope of practice. Results: A total of 259 responses were received. 15.1% and 7.7% of respondents are qualified to report chest and abdomen radiographs, respectively. The mean time spent reporting per week is 14.5 h (range 1–37.5). 23.6% of radiographers report only referrals from emergency departments whilst 50.6% of radiographers have limitations on their practice. Conclusion: The scope of practice of reporting radiographers has increased since previous studies; however, radiographer reporting of chest and abdomen radiographs has failed to progress in line with demand. There remain opportunities to increase radiographer capacity to assist the management of reporting backlogs. Advances in knowledge: This study is the first to examine demographic factors of reporting radiographers across the UK and is one of the largest in-depth studies of UK reporting radiographers, at individual level, to date

Optimising diagnostics through imaging informatics: Costs and opportunities

YesIncreasing diagnostic capacity is a national priority to expedite the timeliness and appropriateness of patient treatment interventions. Imaging—encompassing a range of technologies including X-ray, CT, MRI, nuclear medicine and ultrasound—is a key diagnostic service and central to decision-making in most, if not all, disease pathways. However, imaging is an expensive discipline accounting for an estimated 3–5% of the annual NHS budget. As a result, it is imperative that we maximise service efficiency while optimising patient outcomes.The manuscript version differs from the published version

Ultrasound clinical progress monitoring: Who, where and how?

Prior to assessment of final ultrasound clinical competency it is important to monitor clinical progress, provide high quality feedback and encourage skills development. The role of the supervisor, mentor and assessor are fundamental to the on-going progress monitoring of ultrasound trainees. This article forms the second part of a larger project which was to elicit ultrasound practitioners’ opinions on how progress should be monitored, where and by whom. An on-line questionnaire was used to gain opinions from ultrasound practitioners. Totally, 116 responses were received from professionals with an interest in ultrasound assessment. Results suggested that experienced, qualified ultrasound practitioners should undertake the role of supervisor and assessor, having been prepared for that role by the training centre. Formative monitoring should take place both within the clinical department and possibly the training centre, using a range of methods. Following completion of the training, practitioners should have a preceptorship period to consolidate their knowledge and skills for 3 to 6 months or until further competencies have been demonstrated. Formative progress monitoring should be a recognised part of ultrasound training. Essentially, staff undertaking supervision and assessor roles should be supported and trained to ensure a high quality, consistent learning experience for ultrasound trainees. Additionally, they should provide appropriate feedback to the trainee and education centre

Increasing radiology capacity within the lung cancer pathway: centralised work‐based support for trainee chest X‐ray reporting radiographers

INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic capacity and time to diagnosis are frequently identified as a barrier to improving cancer patient outcomes. Maximising the contribution of the medical imaging workforce, including reporting radiographers, is one way to improve service delivery. METHODS: An efficient and effective centralised model of workplace training support was designed for a cohort of trainee chest X-ray (CXR) reporting radiographers. A comprehensive schedule of tutorials was planned and aligned with the curriculum of a post-graduate certificate in CXR reporting. Trainees were supported via a hub and spoke model (centralised training model), with the majority of education provided by a core group of experienced CXR reporting radiographers. Trainee and departmental feedback on the model was obtained using an online survey. RESULTS: Fourteen trainees were recruited from eight National Health Service Trusts across London. Significant efficiencies of scale were possible with centralised support (48 h) compared to traditional workplace support (348 h). Trainee and manager feedback overall was positive. Trainees and managers both reported good trainee support, translation of learning to practice and increased confidence. Logistics, including trainee travel and release, were identified as areas for improvement. CONCLUSION: Centralised workplace training support is an effective and efficient method to create sustainable diagnostic capacity and support improvements in the lung cancer pathway

Transvaginal ultrasound simulation and its effect on trainee confidence levels: A replacement for initial clinical training?

Introduction: The ScanTrainer transvaginal ultrasound simulator has been developed to facilitate initial training of transvaginal ultrasound skills without patient contact. Due to the intimate nature of the examination and in some cases, limited training opportunities, the need for simulation-based education in ultrasound has gained momentum. Currently, research into the effectiveness of the ScanTrainer is limited. Methods: A mixed method study was conducted in a single institution between October 2011 and January 2012. Participants were recruited using convenience sampling and allocated to the control (clinical training) or experimental (simulation training) group following a pre-test. After 10 hours of their allocated transvaginal ultrasound training method a post-test assessment was conducted and the results statistically analysed. Participants then experienced the alternative method of training and completed questionnaires. The results were used to inform semi-structured interviews for each group. Interview transcripts were interpreted using theme analysis. Results: A small number of doctors completed the study, nine (82%) out of the 11 recruited. The majority of participants (89%) felt that practice on the ScanTrainer can increase confidence prior to attempting a real transvaginal ultrasound scan. Average scores showed that the simulation training group outperformed the clinical training group on overall score and each of the five post-test components. No statistically significant differences were demonstrated for overall score (U = 13, P = 0.556) or the five components (P = 0.190–1). Conclusions: Transvaginal ultrasound training on the ScanTrainer has the potential to replace initial clinical training; however, further larger trials are required to evaluate. Clinically significant outcomes exist if the ScanTrainer training is proven to be more effective than initial clinical training. The ScanTrainer prepares a trainee and builds confidence to progress to clinical scanning, which has the potential to improve the patient experience

CT head reporting by radiographers: results of an accredited postgraduate programme

Aim: To evaluate the results of the summative objective structured examination (OSE) for the first four cohorts of radiographers (n ¼ 24) undertaking an accredited postgraduate course in reporting computer tomography (CT) head examinations. Method: The construction of a summative OSE contained twenty five CT head examinations that incorporated 1:1 normal to abnormal pathological examples. All cases were blind reported by three consultant radiologists to produce a valid reference standard report for comparison with the radiographer's interpretation. The radiographers (n ¼ 24) final reports (n ¼ 600) were analysed to determine the sensitivity, specificity and agreement values and concordance for the four cohorts. Results: The four cohorts (2007e2013) of postgraduate radiography students' collective OSE results established a mean sensitivity rate of 99%, specificity 95% and agreement concordance rates of 90%. The final grades indicate that within an academic environment, trained radiographers possess high levels of diagnostic performance accuracy in the interpretation of CT head examinations

AFROC analysis of reporting radiographer’s performance in CT head interpretation

Aim: A preliminary small scale study to assess the diagnostic performance of a limited group of reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists in clinical practice undertaking computer tomography (CT) head interpretation . Method: A multiple reader multiple case (MRMC) alternative free response receiver operating characteristic (AFROC) methodology was applied. Utilising an image bank of 30 CT head examinations, with a 1:1 ratio of normal to abnormal cases. A reference standard was established by double reporting the original reports using two additional independent consultant radiologists with arbitration of discordance by the researcher. Twelve observers from six southern National Health Service (NHS) trusts were invited to participate. The results were compared for accuracy, agreement, sensitivity, specificity. Data analysis used AFROC and area under the curve (AUC) with standard error. Results: The reporting radiographers results demonstrated a mean sensitivity rate of 88.7% (95% CI 82.3 to 95.1%), specificity 95.6% (96% CI 90.1 to 100%) and accuracy of 92.2% (95% CI 89.3 to 95%). The consultant radiologists mean sensitivity rate was 83.35% (95% CI 80 to 86.7%), specificity 90% (95% CI 86.7 to 93.3%) and accuracy of 86.65% (95% CI 83.3 to 90%). Observer performance between the two groups was compared with AFROC, AUC, and standard error analysis (p=0.94, SE 0.202). Conclusion: The findings of this research indicate that within a limited study, a small group of reporting radiographers demonstrated high levels of diagnostic accuracy in the interpretation of CT head examinations that was equivalent to a small selection of consultant radiologists

Adult chest radiograph reporting by radiographers: Preliminary data from an in-house audit programme

Aim To examine the adult chest radiograph (CXR) reporting performance of a reporting radiographer in clinical practice using different audit systems; single radiologist and two radiologists, with clinical review of discordant cases. Materials and methods 100 chest radiographs (CXRs) were drawn randomly from a consecutive series of 4800 CXRs which had been reported during a nine month period at a district general hospital by a radiographer after two years of training. Diagnostic outcomes were normal or abnormal, and agreement with the reporting radiographer or not. There was 50% duplication of CXRs reported between three radiologists. Concordance rates were determined for the radiographer-radiologist and inter-radiologist interpretations. Independent clinical review of discordant cases was performed to establish the final diagnosis. Results Ninety-nine cases were reviewed, with 40 cases deemed abnormal by at least one radiologist. Consensus was found with the radiographers report in 59 normal and 33 abnormal CXRs reviewed by two radiologists (96.7% and 86.8% respectively). Seven CXR reports were discrepant with clinical review: mediastinal lymphadenopathy was missed by both radiologist and radiographer; linear atelectasis was reported by two radiologists but not the radiographer. Three cases were over-interpreted and on two occasions at least one radiologist agreed with the radiographer. There was very high concordance between the radiographer and each radiologist, 96%, 96% and 92% respectively. Conclusions This study suggested that regular audit, which incorporates case note review and discrepant reporting within a multidisciplinary setting, should contribute to safe practice