The pre-CT checklist: A simple tool to improve workflow and patient safety in an outpatient CT setting

The radiographers' opinion on assessing radiological referrals

INTRODUCTION

Radiographers have a fundamental duty to assess radiological referrals and ensure imaging is justified. This study constitutes the third part of a broader research on radiographers' assessment of referrals. The study examines the opinions of radiographers on the matter, as articulated in their own words.

METHODS

A questionnaire with closed and open-ended questions was designed, validated, and distributed to radiographers following activities organised by the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT). This third part covers the participants' free-text comments about radiographers' assessment of referrals. Qualitative, inductive content analysis was used to report findings involving three phases: 1) Preparation, 2) Organisation where two authors individually coded and categorised the emerged themes, and 3) Reporting, were the authors compared, reviewed, and defined the meanings of the themes and sub-themes.

RESULTS

Five main themes Opportunity, Competency, Work environment, Role perception and Significance emerged, shaped as descriptive, normative, and prospective statements. In opportunities the respondents (descriptively) depicted the importance of their position and challenges faced, including lack of adequate clinical information in referrals. Competencies concerned whether they have the required knowledge and skills for the task. In work environment the respondents viewed themselves as partners and collaborators with radiologists and referrers but expressed that unclear regulations could challenge their task. In role perception, the respondents expressed (normatively) that assessing referrals is vital for professional self-esteem and radiographers' responsibility. Significance covers the importance of assessing referrals for different aspects relating to quality of services.

CONCLUSION

Radiographers expressed high engagement towards tasks of assessing referrals. To support radiographers in this role, it is crucial to establish clear regulations, better organisation of departmental processes and provide adequate training.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Radiology departments should actively explore strategies of incorporating the radiographers' resources and core position in the process of assessing referrals, in a consistent and effective manner.

The value of referral information and assessment - a cross sectional study of radiographers' perceptions

Background

Radiology professionals are frequently confronted with referrals containing insufficient clinical information, which hinders delivery of safe and quality medical imaging services. There is however lack of knowledge on why and how referral information is important for radiographers in clinical practice. This study explores what purposes referral information is used/ useful for the radiographers, and the benefits of involving them in assessing referrals.

Methods

A cross sectional study was conducted of radiographers recruited through the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT) networks. A questionnaire was developed and distributed consisting of 5-point Likert scale questions on a) use/usefulness of referral information for 12 listed purposes and b) the benefits of radiographers assessing referrals for 8 possible reasons. The questionnaire was validated using a test–retest reliability analysis. Kappa values ≥0.6 were accepted. SPSS software was used for data analysis and chi-square tests to determine associations between using referral information and background variables.

Results

Total respondents were 279 (n = 233 currently in clinical practice and n = 46 in other positions). The participants in clinical practice ranked high all 12 listed purposes for use of referral information, and all except one received ≥60% ‘frequent’/‘very frequent’ responses. Use for patient identification purposes received the highest score (97% ‘frequently’/‘very frequently’ responses), followed by ensuring imaging of the correct body region (79% ‘very frequently’ responses). Radiographers not currently working in clinical practice ranked the ‘usefulness’ of listed items similarly. Significant associations between frequent use of referral information and education level were not observed, and only three items were significantly associated with modality of practice. All items on benefits of radiographers assessing referrals received ≥75% ‘agree’/‘strongly agree’ scores. The items ranked highest were promotes radiographers’ professional responsibility and improves collaboration with radiologists and referring clinicians, with 72 and 67% strongly agreed responses, respectively.

Conclusion

Radiographers use referral information frequently for several purposes. The referral information is needed for justifying and optimising radiological procedures, hence crucial for ensuring patient safety and high-quality services. This further emphasis why radiographers perceive several benefits of being involved in assessing the referral information.

Radiographers' actions and challenges when confronted with inappropriate radiology referrals

OBJECTIVES

To explore radiographers' actions toward inappropriate referrals and hindrances to assessing referrals.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to radiographers via the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT) networks. The questionnaire consisted of 5-point Likert scale questions on radiographers' actions to supplement referral information, actions for unjustified referrals and hindrances to referral assessment. The questionnaire was validated using a test-retest reliability analysis. Kappa values ≥ 0.6 were accepted. SPSS software was used for data analysis and chi-square tests to compare subgroups.

RESULTS

Total responses received were 279. The most reported actions to supplement missing referral information were to ask the patient or relative, examine the body region of concern and check medical records (73%, 70%, 67%, responded often/always, respectively). The actions when confronted with unjustified referrals were reported equally to consult the radiologist, referring clinician and radiographer (69-68% often/always responses). The hindering factors ranked high (agreed/strongly agreed responses) pertained to inadequate information in referral forms (83%), ineffective communication among healthcare professionals (79%), lack of training (70%) and allocated time (61%). Statistically significant associations were observed for a few actions and hindrances with education level, modality of practice and responsibility to screen imaging referrals.

CONCLUSION

Radiographers consult colleagues about suspected unjustified referrals. Effective communication pathways, training and time allocation to improve radiographers' skills to assess referrals may enhance appropriate imaging and delivery of quality patient care.

KEY POINTS

• Radiographers' actions of supplementing missing information in radiology referrals facilitate provision of high-quality health services. • Radiographers' strategy when confronted with inappropriate referrals is to consult radiologists and referring clinicians. • Better inter-professional communication and organisation of tasks can facilitate radiographers' participation in referral assessment to ensure appropriate imaging.

Workplace factors facilitating the radiographers' assessment of referrals for diagnostic imaging - A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Radiology referrals are assessed for appropriate imaging based on the available clinical information. The task is legally the responsibility of the radiologists but could be delegated to radiographers under guidance. Knowledge of how this task is organised in radiology departments is limited. The study aim was to identify workplace factors facilitating the radiographers' assessment of referrals for medical imaging.

METHODS

Five radiographers were recruited by convenience- and snowball-sampling techniques through the online social media platform LinkedIn. The participants represented different private and public hospitals and had from three to above ten years of experience with assessment of referrals for plain and cross sectional imaging. Following a qualitative approach, 60-min in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted through online video meetings. Interviews followed a topic guide with 15 questions and 20 keywords, previously tested through a pilot interview. Systematic text condensation was performed using NVivo 12, where central themes and underlying subthemes were developed.

RESULTS

Five central facilitating factors were identified, each with subthemes identified as: (1) Formal responsibilities; Documented delegation, Specific role description, (2) Training; Achieving skills, Maintaining skills, (3) Guidelines; Clinical indications, Priority, (4) Resource allocation; Time, Staff, (5) a Supporting environment; Teamwork, Mutual benefits, Feedback and knowledge sharing.

CONCLUSION

The study adds new and valuable insights into workplace factors facilitating the radiographers' delegated task of assessing referrals. Workflows adapting such factors benefit radiographers by increasing knowledge and professional development, while positively re-allocating radiologist resources.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The study findings may support radiology workplaces in establishing or improving referral assessment by radiographers. Subsequently, improved quality of patient services may be achieved.