Learning strategies in the planning and evaluation phase of image production

A stake in the game: Can radiographer image interpretation improve X-ray quality? A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Image quality is an important factor in imaging optimisation and diagnosis. Many determinants of image quality are controlled by the radiographer; therefore, radiographer-led strategies may be key to improving X-ray image quality. This review examines the literature on radiographer-led diagnostic evaluation to establish its potential to improve X-ray image quality.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews and the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis Scoping Review were used to review studies relevant to the impact of radiographer-led diagnostic evaluation on image quality. CINHAL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Medline databases were searched for relevant articles. Search terms synonymous with radiographer, commenting, and image quality were used and studies that examined any type of radiographer-led image interpretation and its relationship to image quality in X-ray based modalities were reviewed.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. All the studies reviewed unanimously reported a positive association between radiographer image interpretation and image quality in X-ray based modalities. Five emerging themes were identified to be responsible for the improvement in image quality: increased understanding of image quality requirements, improved technical skills, enhanced ability to utilise supplementary imaging and repeats, collaborative upskilling of colleagues, and a complementary interaction between diagnostic and radiographic skills that serves to enhance image quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate that radiographer image interpretation is a useful strategy to optimise the quality of X-ray examinations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The findings highlight a new avenue to improve X-ray quality in the clinical environment and support evidence-based uptake of preliminary image evaluation systems. These findings also support the integration of radiographer commenting alongside technical image quality in teaching curricula.

Understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers

INTRODUCTION

A core element of a radiographer's role is the decision on whether a radiograph is sufficient for diagnosis, or a repeat examination is needed. Studies illustrate the disagreement on the diagnostic value of radiographs between radiographers and radiologists, which may influence repeat examinations. This study investigates if parameters contributing to image quality are possible determinants to explain the difference between professions.

METHODS

A total of 74 radiographers and radiologists from three different countries assessed three data sets (chest PA, hip HBL, c-spine lateral), each containing 25 radiographs. All observers scored image quality in terms of anatomical visualisation, positioning, collimation, detector exposure and judged the diagnostic value using the ACR RadLex classification. All assessments were performed on a clinically relevant display. Visual grading characteristics were used to compare image quality evaluations between groups.

RESULTS

Radiographers scored the visualisation of anatomical structures lower than radiologists though the difference was not statistically significant. A difference in classification using the RadLex categories - with radiographers rejecting more radiographs - was demonstrated. Only the subjective evaluation of the detector exposure correlated statistically with RadLex ratings. There was no difference between radiographers and radiologists when reviewing patient positioning and collimation.

CONCLUSION

Radiographers and radiologists agree on the visualisation of anatomical structures, but radiographers are more critical towards the diagnostic value. Within the criteria studied, the evaluation of anatomical structures does not explain the difference. Radiographs have a higher change of being rejected if the observer (subjectively) assessed the detector exposure as inappropriate. This correlation is stronger for radiographers.

A review of visual ethnography: Radiography viewed through a different lens

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this article is to provide a short review of the research methodology 'visual ethnography'.

METHOD

The review article will provide a summary of the foundations of visual ethnography, outline the key debates and refer to some of the main authors working in this field.

RESULTS

Visual Ethnography is both a methodology and a method of research. It should be selected for research in radiography when research questions seek to focus upon aspects or elements of a culture. A research plan that is designed using a visual ethnographic approach should be flexible and take into account the requirements of the researcher and research participants. Visual methods of research include the use of various images, for example, photographs, collage, film or drawings. Visual methods are commonly employed together with interviews, conversations and observation. The approach enables researchers to generate new and unique insights into cultures.

CONCLUSION

This review of visual ethnography provides background information that informs an introduction to the methodology. It demonstrates a methodology with the potential to explore culture and expand knowledge of radiography practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The authors suggest that for future studies visual ethnography is a methodology that can expand the paradigm of radiography research.