Anatomical and/or pathological predictors for the “incorrect” classification of red dot markers on wrist radiographs taken following trauma

OBJECTIVE: To establish the prevalence of red dot markers in a sample of wrist radiographs and to identify any anatomical and/or pathological characteristics that predict “incorrect” red dot classification. METHODS: Accident and emergency (A&E) wrist cases from a digital imaging and communications in medicine/digital teaching library were examined for red dot prevalence and for the presence of several anatomical and pathological features. Binary logistic regression analyses were run to establish if any of these features were predictors of incorrect red dot classification. RESULTS: 398 cases were analysed. Red dot was “incorrectly” classified in 8.5% of cases; 6.3% were “false negatives” (“FNs”)and 2.3% false positives (FPs) (one decimal place). Old fractures [odds ratio (OR), 5.070 (1.256–20.471)] and reported degenerative change [OR, 9.870 (2.300–42.359)] were found to predict FPs. Frykman V [OR, 9.500 (1.954–46.179)], Frykman VI [OR, 6.333 (1.205–33.283)] and non-Frykman positive abnormalities [OR, 4.597 (1.264–16.711)] predict “FNs”. Old fractures and Frykman VI were predictive of error at 90% confidence interval (CI); the rest at 95% CI. CONCLUSION: The five predictors of incorrect red dot classification may inform the image interpretation training of radiographers and other professionals to reduce diagnostic error. Verification with larger samples would reinforce these findings. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: All healthcare providers strive to eradicate diagnostic error. By examining specific anatomical and pathological predictors on radiographs for such error, as well as extrinsic factors that may affect reporting accuracy, image interpretation training can focus on these “problem” areas and influence which radiographic abnormality detection schemes are appropriate to implement in A&E departments

Audit of the job satisfaction levels of the UK radiography and physics workforce in UK radiotherapy centres 2012

Conclusion: Radiotherapy professionals are prone to the effects of compassion fatigue and burnout. Attention must be paid to workload and its impact on practitioners' job satisfaction. Professional development that is supported and informed by a performance development review is a simple and effective means of enhancing satisfaction. Individuals have a responsibility to themselves and their colleagues as their behaviours and attitudes influence job satisfaction. Advances in knowledge: This work identifies areas for future research to enhance the professional resilience of practitioners, in order to provide high-quality treatments. Objective: Workforce planning reports identify a staff shortfall that jeopardizes the ability of UK radiotherapy centres to meet future demands. Obtaining an understanding of the work experiences of radiotherapy professionals will support the development of strategies to increase job satisfaction, productivity and effectiveness. Methods: A quantitative survey assessed job satisfaction, attitudes to incident reporting, stress and burnout, opportunities for professional development, workload, retention and turnover. Clinical oncologists were not included, as the Royal College of Radiologists, London, UK, had recently assessed their members' satisfaction. All questions were taken from validated instruments or adapted from the "UK National Health Service Staff Survey". Results: The survey yielded 658 completed responses (approximately 16% response rate), from public and private sectors. Over a third (36%) of respondents were classified as satisfied for job satisfaction with 11% dissatisfied and the remaining 53% ambivalent. A significant proportion of clinical staff (37.5%) report high emotional exhaustion. Presenteeism was an issue with 42.4% attending work despite feeling unable to fulfil their role.</p

Evidence for models of diagnostic service provision in the community: literature mapping exercise and focused rapid reviews

Background Current NHS policy favours the expansion of diagnostic testing services in community and primary care settings. Objectives Our objectives were to identify current models of community diagnostic services in the UK and internationally and to assess the evidence for quality, safety and clinical effectiveness of such services. We were also interested in whether or not there is any evidence to support a broader range of diagnostic tests being provided in the community. Review methods We performed an initial broad literature mapping exercise to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence. The results were used to inform selection of three areas for investigation in more detail. We chose to perform focused reviews on logistics of diagnostic modalities in primary care (because the relevant issues differ widely between different types of test); diagnostic ultrasound (a key diagnostic technology affected by developments in equipment); and a diagnostic pathway (assessment of breathlessness) typically delivered wholly or partly in primary care/community settings. Databases and other sources searched, and search dates, were decided individually for each review. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion. Results We identified seven main models of service that are delivered in primary care/community settings and in most cases with the possible involvement of community/primary care staff. Not all of these models are relevant to all types of diagnostic test. Overall, the evidence base for community- and primary care-based diagnostic services was limited, with very few controlled studies comparing different models of service. We found evidence from different settings that these services can reduce referrals to secondary care and allow more patients to be managed in primary care, but the quality of the research was generally poor. Evidence on the quality (including diagnostic accuracy and appropriateness of test ordering) and safety of such services was mixed. Conclusions In the absence of clear evidence of superior clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the expansion of community-based services appears to be driven by other factors. These include policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals; the promise of reduced waiting times for diagnosis; the availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment; and the ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts. However, service development also faces a number of barriers, including issues related to staffing, training, governance and quality control. Limitations We have not attempted to cover all types of diagnostic technology in equal depth. Time and staff resources constrained our ability to carry out review processes in duplicate. Research in this field is limited by the difficulty of obtaining, from publicly available sources, up-to-date information about what models of service are commissioned, where and from which providers. Future work There is a need for research to compare the outcomes of different service models using robust study designs. Comparisons of ‘true’ community-based services with secondary care-based open-access services and rapid access clinics would be particularly valuable. There are specific needs for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider health system. There appears to be no easy way of identifying what services are being commissioned from whom and keeping up with local evaluations of new services, suggesting a need to improve the availability of information in this area. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme