Should radiologists report on every film?

Assessing the barriers and enablers to the implementation of the diagnostic radiographer musculoskeletal X-ray reporting service within the NHS in England: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

The United Kingdom (UK) government's healthcare policy in the early 1990s paved the way adoption of the skills mix development and implementation of diagnostic radiographers' X-ray reporting service. Current clinical practice within the public UK healthcare system reflects the same pressures of increased demand in patient imaging and limited capacity of the reporting workforce (radiographers and radiologists) as in the 1990s. This study aimed to identify, define and assess the longitudinal macro, meso, and micro barriers and enablers to the implementation of the diagnostic radiographer musculoskeletal X-ray reporting service in the National Healthcare System (NHS) in England.

METHODS

Multiple independent databases were searched, including PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL, and Google Scholar, as well as journal databases (Scopus, Wiley), healthcare databases (NHS Evidence Database; Cochrane Library) and grey literature databases (OpenGrey, GreyNet International, and the British Library EthOS depository) and recorded in a PRISMA flow chart. A combination of keywords, Boolean logic, truncation, parentheses and wildcards with inclusion/exclusion criteria and a time frame of 1995-2022 was applied. The literature was assessed against Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal checklists. With meta-aggregation to synthesize each paper, and coded using NVivo, with context grouped into macro, meso, and micro-level sources and categorised into subgroups of enablers and barriers.

RESULTS

The wide and diverse range of data (n = 241 papers) identified barriers and enablers of implementation, which were categorised into measures of macro, meso, and micro levels, and thematic categories of context, culture, environment, and leadership.

CONCLUSION

The literature since 1995 has reframed the debates on implementation of the radiographer reporting role and has been instrumental in shaping clinical practice. There has been clear influence upon both meso (professional body) and macro-level (governmental/health service) policies and guidance, that have shaped change at micro-level NHS Trust organisations. There is evidence of a shift in culturally intrenched legacy perspectives within and between different meso-level professional bodies around skills mix acceptance and role boundaries. This has helped shape capacity building of the reporting workforce. All of which have contributed to conceptual understandings of the skills mix workforce within modern radiology services.

Developing Critical Thinking Skills in Student Sonographers

Cognitive ability as well as psychomotor ability distinguishes the professional sonographer. The process of critical thinking is an essential component of sonography. However, the concept of critical thinking requires more explicit acknowledgement from the profession in order to promote change in educational strategies leading to better clinical practice. This article represents the rationale for developing critical thinking skills in student sonographers and discusses possible barriers to thinking critically. Strategies for promoting critical thinking skills in both the classroom and the clinical situation will be explored.

Accuracy of radiographer plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice: a meta-analysis

AIM

To determine the accuracy of radiographer plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies were identified from electronic sources and by hand searching journals, personal communication and checking reference lists. Eligible studies assessed radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice compared with a reference standard, and provided accuracy data to construct 2 x 2 contingency tables. Data were extracted on study eligibility and characteristics, quality and accuracy. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to pool the accuracy data.

RESULTS

Radiographers compared with a reference standard, report plain radiographs in clinical practice at 92.6% (95% CI: 92.0-93.2) and 97.7% (95% CI: 97.5-97.9) sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Studies that compared selectively trained radiographers and radiologists of varying seniority against a reference standard showed no evidence of a difference between radiographer and radiologist reporting accuracy of accident and emergency plain radiographs. Selectively trained radiographers were also found to report such radiographs as accurately as those not solely from accident and emergency, although some variation in reporting accuracy was found for different body areas. Training radiographers improved their accuracy when reporting normal radiographs.

CONCLUSION

This study systematically synthesizes the literature to provide an evidence-base showing that radiographers can accurately report plain radiographs in clinical practice.

Improving radiographer highlighting of trauma films in the accident and emergency department with a short course of study--an evaluation

The case for radiographer abnormality highlighting in the Accident and Emergency (A&E) department is well documented. Following evaluative feedback, 280 questionnaires were sent nationally to A&E radiology departments (excluding Northern Ireland). The intent of the survey was to ascertain the viability of constructing a short course in trauma plain film pattern recognition in the axial and appendicular skeleton. Following a highly positive response a course was designed and operated on a workshop basis, being lead primarily by reporting radiographers. The course was evaluated for effectiveness using three identical assessments of 42 films, including 12 positive for trauma. A sample of 22 radiographers who attended the pilot course and subsequent courses throughout 1998/99 undertook the assessment. The assessments themselves were performed at the start and end of the course and 6-10 weeks after completion. Results appear to indicate that a significant improvement in the specificity (p = 0.002) and accuracy (p = 0.005) was achieved following the course. In the light of continuing professional development, the course appears to address the needs of the majority of clinical radiographers working in A&E.

Interpretation of selected accident and emergency radiographic examinations by radiographers: a review of 11000 cases

Two specially trained radiographers took part in the radiologists' rota for "cold" reporting skeletal radiographs of patients who attended the Accident and Emergency (A&E) Department at times when there was no "hot" reporting service operating, and who were not admitted for treatment or referred to fracture clinics for follow-up. These radiographs had initially been seen by A&E medical staff. At the end of an 18 month period during which the two radiographers reported on 11,322 skeletal examinations, a retrospective search was made to detect interpretive errors. The radiological history of all 11,322 patients was reviewed over a follow-up period of at least 3 months subsequent to the attendance reported by the radiographers. 48% of patients did not re-attend, 42% re-attended for unrelated examinations, and 10% re-attended for repeat examinations of the same anatomical area, or for different procedures (bone scintigraphy or CT) related to the original injury. The second (or subsequent) report was discrepant with that of the first attendance in only 29 cases out of 1103. Of these 29 patients, 13 had occult fractures which were undetectable at first attendance even in retrospect, six had new injuries accounting for the new findings, six had been the subject of false positive calls at an earlier visit, one had a fracture of the hamate missed at first attendance, and in three cases no consensus could be reached as to the cause of the discrepancy, owing to incomplete films or insufficient clinical data. Analysis of the patients' postcodes showed at least 89% were of local origin and only 1% were from outside Yorkshire, suggesting that the review should have identified the great majority of erroneous reports. It is concluded that appropriately trained and supervised radiographers can successfully undertake diagnostic reporting of selected skeletal examinations on A&E patients.

Variation between experienced observers in the interpretation of accident and emergency radiographs

Skill mix and role extension initiatives have highlighted the difficulty of establishing quality standards for the accuracy of plain film reporting. An acceptable performance might be one which is indistinguishable from that of a group of experienced consultant radiologists. In order to assess the feasibility of setting such a standard, the variation between experienced observers must first be established. This study examines the variation found between three observers with the three major types of plain film examination. 402 plain film examinations (205 skeletal, 100 chest and 97 abdominal) performed on accident and emergency patients were reported retrospectively and independently by three experienced radiologists. The clinical data supplied on the request cards were available to the readers. Each examination was categorized by each reader as being normal, as showing significant abnormality relevant to the current clinical problem, or as showing insignificant or irrelevant abnormality. Concordance between all three readers was found in 51%, 61% and 74% of abdominal, chest and skeletal radiographs, respectively. Weighted kappa values confirmed that the level of agreement between pairs of observers was higher with skeletal radiographs (kappa w = 0.76-0.77) than with chest (kappa w = 0.63-0.68), or abdominal (kappa w = 0.50-0.78) examinations. However, the frequency of major disagreements (at least one reader reporting "normal" and one reporting "relevant abnormality") was similar for abdominal (11%), chest (12%) and skeletal (10%) radiographs. When the reports were reclassified into only two groups--either significantly abnormal or not--pairs of observers disagreed on 9-10% of skeletal, 11-19% of chest and 8-18% of abdominal cases. The average incidence of errors per observer was estimated to be in the range 3-6%. The magnitude of interobserver variation in plain film reporting is considerable, and must be taken into account when designing assessment techniques and setting quality standards for this activity.

Short communication: plain film reporting by radiographers--a feasibility study

Two specially-trained radiographers reported 561 plain film examinations on accident and emergency (A/E) patients in parallel with rota radiologists of varying seniority. The reports were concordant in 495 cases (88.2%) and discordant in 66 (11.8%). The incidence of errors (false positives and false negatives) in the reports made by the two groups of observers was not significantly different. It may be feasible to introduce suitably trained radiographers into a reporting rota for A/E examinations with no detriment to the quality of reports.

Radiographers as film readers in screening mammography: an assessment of competence under test and screening conditions

The aim of this study was to investigate the potential of radiographers as film readers in screening mammography. Seven radiographers received training in mammogram interpretation at a National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Training Centre. Film reading performance was assessed over a period of 1 year after training with test sets of selected screening mammograms. Actual screening performance on contemporary screening mammograms was monitored after training in relation to radiologist decisions and screening outcome. It was found that trained radiographers read mammograms to a standard comparable with that of radiologists. Film reading skills were maintained consistently over the period of this study and transferred to actual screening performance. It was concluded that radiographers could play a useful role as second readers in screening mammography. Training needs have to be assessed in relation to the role the film reading radiographer is to adopt.

Reporting of fracture radiographs by radiographers: the impact of a training programme

In order to determine what influence training would have on their ability to interpret skeletal radiographs from the accident and emergency department, a 6 months training programme was established for three radiographers in various aspects of the radiology of orthopaedics and skeletal trauma. During the study the radiographers reported on radiographs from the accident and emergency department and each month an evaluation of their accuracy was undertaken. The overall radiographer error rate for fracture detection (false positive and false negative) declined during the training period. This was highly significant (p < 0.001). The sensitivity for fracture detection improved from 81.1% at the commencement of the trial to 95.9% at the end. This was also highly significant (p < 0.001). Radiographer specificity for the exclusion of fractures also improved from 94.4% during the first 2 months to 96.6% in the final 2 months, and this was also significant (p < 0.05). The overall error rate of two of the three radiographers improved significantly (p < 0.001) but for one radiographer the improvement did not reach a level of statistical significance. The difference in sensitivity for fracture detection at the commencement of the trial period between radiologist and radiographer was highly significant (p < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference during the last two months of the trial. The difference in specificity between radiologist and radiographer remained highly significant both at the beginning and the end of the trial (p < 0.001). Experienced radiographers who receive supplementary training in the radiology of skeletal trauma can significantly improve their diagnostic skills and can report such radiographs with a high degree of accuracy. A programme of training and certification of radiographers in fracture reporting could help alleviate the diagnostic radiologists' workload of plain film reporting.

An audit of the role of the sonographer in non-obstetric ultrasound

In order to investigate the role of the sonographer in non-obstetric ultrasound, 1046 consecutive non-obstetric ultrasound scans performed by sonographers were audited. In 94% of cases, the report prepared by the sonographer gave an accurate account of the findings. In 6.3% of reports the radiologist provided additional comments, whilst in only 0.7% of cases was the sonographer's report significantly altered. In the 630 patients in whom adequate follow-up data was available, there was a single instance of a false positive ultrasound finding but no other significant ultrasound inaccuracy. This audit indicates that the local arrangements for involving sonographers in a non-obstetric ultrasound service has resulted in agreed standards being met. It is suggested that sonographers can and should be involved more widely in the provision of non-obstetric ultrasound services.

An audit of a radiographer based ultrasound service

A general ultrasound service has evolved over several years. Radiographers undertake the general ultrasound lists, and show the request card and the hard copy films to a radiologist prior to the patient leaving the department. Whilst it is generally accepted for radiographers to carry the burden of obstetric scanning, this is less so for general work. This audit is of a sample of 100 patients out of the general ultrasound lists. These patients underwent the standard service examination by a radiographer and subsequent report by the radiologist. They also had a separate examination and report by an independent radiologist. 42 patients were agreed to have normal findings. 75 diagnoses or observations were made in the remaining 58 patients. Discrepancies arose between the two limbs of the audit in 20 of the observations. Review of the hard copy films and repeat scanning of patients where necessary identified one relevant error by the auditing radiologist and three relevant errors by the standard service. Whilst errors are made both by radiologists and radiographers, it is concluded that the existing radiographer based ultrasound service provides a satisfactory level of accuracy.