A taxonomy of anatomical and pathological entities to support commenting on radiographs (preliminary clinical evaluation)

Preliminary clinical evaluation: Where are we? An international scoping review

BACKGROUND

The College of Radiographers' vision was that diagnostic radiographers in the UK would be writing preliminary clinical evaluations (PCE) on images. Their 2013 policy supporting the use of PCE has not been updated in a decade and it might be suggested PCE practices in the UK have not really moved on, though elsewhere it appears to have gained traction. The aim of this scoping review was to establish the current global status of the use of PCE.

METHOD

The Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines were used to develop a protocol to identify studies between January 2013 to January 2024 using six databases. Collated literature was analysed using content analysis to identify themes.

RESULTS

52 relevant studies were identified for inclusion. Studies focused predominantly on evaluating accuracy, education, perceptions, and new initiatives. Themes identified a developing role in the use of PCE internationally, perhaps more than in the UK, and in a range of modalities and clinical settings though projectional radiography remains the mainstay. Barriers and drivers to the use of PCE were identified in addition to some quality mechanisms used to support PCE implementation, though impact of implementation was not well explored.

CONCLUSION

Considering PCE has been an aspiration for more than a decade, it remains relatively infrequently researched. There is growing scope internationally, particularly in Australia, yet there is no real evaluation of the impact and role that PCE may have.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Until further research into the potential impact of PCE and barriers to its implementation, it is likely practices may not evolve with the risk AI technologies may supersede necessity for the practice.

Accuracy of radiographer preliminary clinical evaluation of skeletal trauma radiographs, in clinical practice at a district general hospital

INTRODUCTION

Error in interpretation of trauma radiographs by referrers is a problem which has detrimental effects on the patient and causes unnecessary repeat attendances. Radiographers can reduce errors by offering their opinion at the time of imaging. The Society and College of Radiographers have a longstanding recommendation that Red Dot (RD) schemes should be replaced by Preliminary Clinical Evaluation (PCE). The purpose of the study was to evaluate radiographer interpretation of skeletal trauma radiographs in clinical practice, determine if there was any difference in ability to interpret appendicular and axial studies, and evaluate appropriateness of PCE implementation.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 23 self-selecting radiographers provided RD and PCE on 762 examinations. Each case was compared against the verified report and assigned a true negative/positive or false negative/positive value. Accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were calculated and performance measures between RD versus PCE, and appendicular versus axial were compared using Two-sample Z-Tests. Error analysis was performed and inter-observer consistency determined.

RESULTS

Overall RD and PCE accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for the study were 90%, 72% and 97% (RD), and 92%, 80% and 97% (PCE) respectively. Significant difference was demonstrated for sensitivity with PCE more sensitive than RD (p-value 0.03) and appendicular more sensitive than axial (RD p-value <0.02, PCE p-value <0.0001). Most errors were false negatives. Inter-observer consistency was evaluated by review of 128 cases and no difference between reviewers was established.

CONCLUSION

Radiographers without specific training were able to provide RD and PCE to a high standard. Radiographers interpreted positive findings more accurately using PCE than RD, and positive findings on appendicular cases were interpreted more accurately than those on axial cases.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study supports local PCE implementation, contributes to the wider evidence base to justify transition towards PCE and identifies the necessity for local axial image interpretation training.

What information is required in a preliminary clinical evaluation? A service evaluation

INTRODUCTION

The preliminary clinical evaluation (PCE) abnormality flagging system is a progression from the red dot system. The need for a PCE service may be reduced by immediate "hot" reporting services, however, PCE can be valuable in those Trusts that do not have a "hot reporting"service, as well as in the out of hours setting. This study aimed to identify what information clinicians require within the PCE to aid decision making.

METHODS

Emergency Department (ED) clinicians and Radiology reporters were approached to complete a paper survey seeking their preferences on various aspects of the What, Where, How model, regarding their usefulness. Questions were a combination of multiple choice, Likert scale, and free-text.

RESULTS

Thirty participants (20 ED clinicians and 10 Radiology Reporters) provided a 100% response rate. Overall, Where was considered to be most significant (n = 18, 60%), followed by What (n = 11, 37%). Half of participants (n = 15, 50%) considered How to be least significant. ED clinicians found all aspects of the What, Where, How useful, in particular the Where, but to a slightly lesser extent regarding how much displacement was involved. Overall, the information ranked as least useful was how much movement, followed by direction of movement, and type of fracture. The preferred style for a PCE comment is a bullet format.

CONCLUSION

PCE content should accommodate the preferences of ED referrers. Our findings suggest clinicians want information pertaining to what the abnormality is (i.e. the type of injury), where it was (more specific than simply which bone) and if displacement is present.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

These findings add to the current knowledge base and provide support to the local department when implementing the PCE system.

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.