Children’s experience of going through an acute radiographic examination

Panoramic errors in pediatric patients with special needs

This study aimed to analyze the types and frequencies of panoramic technical errors in pediatric patients with special needs, as compared to matching images of patients with normal developmental patterns. Panoramic images of 100 pediatric patients, with equal numbers of either special needs or healthy controls, referred to our Oral Maxillofacial Imaging unit, were retrospectively examined by four blinded observers for the presence of four common technical errors: palatoglossal air space, movement, positioning errors, and foreign bodies appearance. In addition, they subjectively determined the image quality on an ordinal scale. The statistical examination included inter-observer correlation and correlations between demographic factors (age, gender, developmental status) and the number and types of errors. The frequencies of demonstrated errors were, in descending order: movement, positioning, palatoglossal air space, and foreign bodies' appearance. The special needs group images showed significantly more errors and were rated as low-quality radiographs. Younger patients in both groups showed more movement and positioning errors. Technical errors in panoramic images of patients with special needs were more frequently found. Therefore, increased awareness of the staff and appropriate pre-imaging instructions to the patients, are required when imaging pediatric patients, especially those with special needs.

Communication during children's X-ray procedures and children's experiences of the procedure: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Communication is a central part of radiological procedures and influences children's experiences. Previous research concentrates on communication and experiences during complex radiological procedures such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Less is known about the communication that occurs with children undergoing procedures, such as non-urgent X-ray procedures, or the impact communication has on a child's experience.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review examined evidence relating to the communication which occurs between children, parents and radiographers during children's X-ray procedures and how children experience undergoing X-ray procedures.

KEY FINDINGS

The comprehensive search identified eight papers. Evidence shows that radiographers dominate communication during X-ray procedures, with their communication in many cases being instructional, closed and limiting the opportunities for children to be involved. Evidence indicates that radiographers have a role in facilitating children in actively engaging in communication during their procedure. The papers that sought children's first-hand experiences highlight children's mainly positive experiences of having an X-ray, and the importance of informing children about their X-ray before and during the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The scarcity of literature highlights a need for research exploring communication during children's radiological procedures and children's first-hand experiences of undergoing these procedures. Findings highlight a need for an approach that recognises the importance of dyadic (radiographer and child), and triadic (radiographer, parent and child) communication opportunities during an X-ray procedure.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This review highlights a need for an inclusive and participatory approach to communication that recognises children's voice and agency in X-ray procedures.

Diagnostic radiographers' experiences when interacting with the custodians of paediatric patients presenting for general radiographic imaging

INTRODUCTION

Radiographic imaging of children presents several complexities, one of which includes their reliance on an adult to take care of them. Literature reports on investigations that focused on interactions of healthcare professionals with children and their parents or guardians in the healthcare setting, but little is known about radiographers' interactions with different custodians of paediatric patients. This study sought to explore and describe the experiences of radiographers with the different custodians of paediatric patients and assess how these custodians contribute to the outcomes of radiographic examinations.

METHODS

A qualitative, exploratory descriptive design was undertaken. Purposive sampling was used to select 25 radiographers from four health institutions in the Tshwane region of South Africa. Semi-structured interviews, audiotapes and field notes were used to collect data. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the transcribed data.

RESULTS

The following three themes emerged, namely; a) communication with different custodians, b) a radiographer's role in suspected physical abuse (SPA) and c) radiographers' responsibilities and associated radiation concerns.

CONCLUSION

Radiographers experienced different communication and interaction challenges in the imaging department with various custodians of paediatric patients. These impacted service deliveries. The paediatric patient's reaction in the imaging room might further affect the interaction between the radiographer and the custodian.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There is a need for further studies that explore the concerns that radiographers have regarding their limited role in SPA. In addition, the study also adds to increasing awareness of both health professionals and the general public on radiation protection and safety.

The role of pediatric radiologists and radiographers: a different future from the past

The author of this paper reflects on the reality of pediatric radiology practice and pinpoints several constraints identified in the literature, constraints that limit the development of the role of pediatric radiologists and radiographers and therefore compromise the quality of medical imaging care delivered to the children. There is a need to build a pediatric imaging family of dedicated radiographers and radiologists at every hospital that has a radiology department. This strategy could improve the quality of the 350 million pediatric imaging procedures performed every year.

Children's voices--Differentiating a child perspective from a child's perspective

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper was to discuss differences between having a child perspective and taking the child's perspective based on the problem being investigated.

METHODS

Conceptual paper based on narrative review.

RESULTS

The child's perspective in research concerning children that need additional support are important. The difference between having a child perspective and taking the child's perspective in conjunction with the need to know children's opinions has been discussed in the literature. From an ideological perspective the difference between the two perspectives seems self-evident, but the perspectives might be better seen as different ends on a continuum solely from an adult's view of children to solely the perspective of children themselves. Depending on the research question, the design of the study may benefit from taking either perspective. In this article, we discuss the difference between the perspectives based on the problem being investigated, children's capacity to express opinions, environmental adaptations and the degree of interpretation needed to understand children's opinions.

CONCLUSION

The examples provided indicate that children's opinions can be regarded in most research, although to different degrees.

Will it hurt? Verbal interaction between child and radiographer during radiographic examination

This study investigated the nature of verbal interactions between child, parent and radiographer and the extent to which it varied as a function of the child's age. The participants were 20 female radiographers and 32 children (3-15 years) examined for acute injuries. The verbal interactions during the examination were video recorded and analyzed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). Results indicated that 80% of the verbal interaction was accounted for by the radiographer, 17% by the child and 3% by the parent. The distribution of utterances varied with regard to children's age.