MRI reporting by radiographers: The construction of an objective structured examination

An investigation into the clinical scope of practice of MRI reporting radiographers within the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

Radiographers have been reporting Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) examinations for over ten years, and there is an increasing body of evidence confirming the efficacy of this role expansion. However, little is known about the clinical scope of practice of radiographers undertaking this enhanced level of practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical scope of practice of MRI reporting radiographers within the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

MRI reporting radiographers who are actively reporting within the UK were invited to participate in a short online survey investigating the anatomical areas reported, clinical referral pathways and onward referral practices they routinely undertake. The survey was distributed via social media channels with snowball sampling encouraged.

RESULTS

There were n = 14 responses received, with an estimated response rate of 21.5%. The majority (93% n = 13/14) practised in England, with one response from Scotland. All participants (n = 14/14) undertook reporting of general practitioner (GP) and community healthcare practitioner's referrals, with 93% reporting for outpatient referrers. There was statistically significant variation in the anatomical areas reported when compared against those qualified less than two years and those qualified over ten years (p = 0.003). No other statistically significant variation was seen.

CONCLUSION

There was no statistical difference in the implementation of MRI reporting by radiographers identified. All participants indicated reporting for GP and community healthcare practitioner referrers which align well with the implementation of community diagnostic centre rollout across the UK.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

This is believed to be the first study of its kind in the realm of MRI reporting. The study has suggested that MRI reporting radiographers are well placed to contribute to the rollout of community diagnostic centres within the UK.

How is the reporting radiographer role portrayed in published studies? A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Radiographers have been undertaking reporting tasks since the 1980's with a wealth of evidence published to support this practice. Radiographers have since developed skills in reporting all body systems, from all referral sources across a range of modalities. Radiographer reporting is now considered established and demand for radiographers in this role is rising to meet service demand. Reporting radiographers work as part of multi-professional image reporting teams, it is unclear how the radiographer role is perceived as part of this model. The aim was to review peer-reviewed literature to evaluate how the role of the reporting radiographer is portrayed and how the relationship between the two imaging professions has developed.

KEY FINDINGS

Language used to discuss the role of the reporting radiographer has changed over time. There is progress demonstrated from the practice of radiographer reporting being considered contentious or opposed to accepted and established. Recent publications focus on the importance utilising the skills of all multi-disciplinary team members in workforce structure. This features prominently when discussing future workforce design, such as with the Cancer workforce strategy and the development of the national standards for musculoskeletal reporting.

CONCLUSION

Published literature has highlighted a move towards acceptance of the reporting radiographer role. Multi-disciplinary team working, utilising the skills of all imaging team members, is essential to the success and sustainability of the imaging workforce moving forwards.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Reporting by radiographers is established and will be prominent in the reporting workforce as part of long-term workforce planning, considering skills mix to form effective and sustainable multidisciplinary reporting teams.

Concordance between a neuroradiologist, a consultant radiologist and trained reporting radiographers interpreting MRI head examinations: An empirical study

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed agreement between MRI reporting radiographers and a consultant radiologist compared with an index neuroradiologist when reporting MRI head (brain/internal auditory meati [IAMs]) examinations. The effect on patient management of any discordant reports was also examined.

METHODS

Two trained MRI reporting radiographers (RRs), a consultant radiologist (CR) and an index neuroradiologist (INR) reported on a random sample of 210 MRI examinations. The radiographers reported during clinical practice and the radiologists in clinical practice conditions. Two independent consultant physicians (neuro-rehabilitation and neuropsychiatry) compared these reports with the index neuroradiologist report for agreement and the clinical importance of discrepant reports.

RESULTS

Overall observer agreement between the RRs and CR was comparable in relation to agreement with the INR: RR; 93/210 (44.3%); and the CR; 83/210 (39.4%) for all head MRI examinations (p = 0.32). For brain examinations the difference was similar: RR; 64/180 (35.6%); and CR; 54/190 (30.0%), p = 0.26. Agreement rates for the IAMs examinations were identical, 29/30 (97.7%). For all head MRI examinations (n = 210) there was a very small observed difference of <0.5% in mean agreement between the reporting radiographers and the consultant radiologist (p = 0.92) for examinations where a major disagreement would have been likely to have led to a change in patient management.

CONCLUSION

MRI reporting radiographers reported during clinical practice on MRI head examinations to a level of agreement comparable with a consultant radiologist.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This is an area in which radiographers could provide additional reporting roles to the reporting service to increase capacity. Wider potential benefits include cost-effectiveness and role development/retention of radiographers.

Image interpretation by radiographers in brain, spine and knee MRI examinations: Findings from an accredited postgraduate module

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of radiographers in image interpretation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain, spine and knee examinations following a nine-month work based postgraduate MRI module.

METHODS

Twenty-seven participants each submitted 60 image commentaries taken from prospective clinical workloads. The image interpretations (n = 1620) comprised brain, spine, and knee MRI examinations. Prevalence of abnormal examinations approximated 53% (brain), 74% (spine), and 73% (knee), and included acute and chronic pathology, normal variants and incidental findings. Each image interpretation was graded against reference standard consultant radiologist definitive report.

RESULTS

The radiographer's performance on brain image interpretations demonstrated mean accuracy at 86.7% (95% CI 83.4-89.3) with sensitivity and specificity of 84% (95% CI 80.9-86.4) and 89.7% (95% CI 86.2-92.6) respectively. For spinal interpretations the mean accuracy was 86.4% (95% CI 83.4-89.0), sensitivity was 90.2% (95% CI 88.2-92), mean specificity was 75.3% (95% CI 69.4-80.4). The mean results for knee interpretation accuracy were 80.9% (95% CI 77.3-84.1), sensitivity was 83.3% (95% CI 80.8-85.5), with 74.3% specificity (95% CI 67.4-80.4).

CONCLUSIONS

The radiographer's demonstrated skills in brain, spine and knee MRI examination image interpretation. These skills are not to replace radiologist reporting but to meet regulating body standards of proficiency, and to assist decision making in communicating unexpected serious findings, and/or extend scan range and sequences. Further research is required to investigate the impact of these skills on adjusting scan protocols or flagging urgent findings in clinical practice.