Social networks and expertise development for Australian breast radiologists

Factors That Affect Knowledge-Sharing Behaviors in Medical Imaging Departments in Cancer Centers: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Knowledge management plays a significant role in health care institutions. It consists of 4 processes: knowledge creation, knowledge capture, knowledge sharing, and knowledge application. The success of health care institutions relies on effective knowledge sharing among health care professionals, so the facilitators and barriers to knowledge sharing must be identified and understood. Medical imaging departments play a key role in cancer centers. Therefore, an understanding of the factors that affect knowledge sharing in medical imaging departments should be sought to increase patient outcomes and reduce medical errors.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the facilitators and barriers that affect knowledge-sharing behaviors in medical imaging departments and identify the differences between medical imaging departments in general hospitals and cancer centers.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search in PubMed Central, EBSCOhost (CINAHL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Elsevier (Scopus), ProQuest, and Clarivate (Web of Science) in December 2021. Relevant articles were identified by examining the titles and abstracts. In total, 2 reviewers independently screened the full texts of relevant papers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that investigated the facilitators and barriers that affect knowledge sharing. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the included articles and narrative synthesis to report the results.

RESULTS

A total of 49 articles were selected for the full in-depth analysis, and 38 (78%) studies were included in the final review, with 1 article added from other selected databases. There were 31 facilitators and 10 barriers identified that affected knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments. These facilitators were divided according to their characteristics into 3 categories: individual, departmental, and technological facilitators. The barriers that hindered knowledge sharing were divided into 4 categories: financial, administrative, technological, and geographical barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlighted the factors that influenced knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments in cancer centers and general hospitals. In terms of the facilitators and barriers to knowledge sharing, this study shows that these are the same in medical imaging departments, whether in general hospitals or cancer centers. Our findings can be used as guidelines for medical imaging departments to support knowledge-sharing frameworks and enhance knowledge sharing by understanding the facilitators and barriers.

Knowledge of autism gained by learning from people through a local UK Autism Champion Network: A health and social care professional perspective

LAY ABSTRACT

The Autism Act 10 Years On found few autistic adults thought health and social care professionals had a good understanding of autism. Autism training has been made law in the United Kingdom for health and social care staff to tackle health inequality. The county wide Autism Champion Network evaluated here is an equal partnership of interested staff across sectors (Autism Champions) and autistic experts by virtue of lived experience (Autism Advisory Panel). With knowledge flowing both ways, the Autism Champions take learning back to teams to support continuous development of services to meet autistic need. Seven health and social sector professionals from the Network participated in semi-structured interviews on sharing knowledge of autism gained with their teams. All participants provide care and support for autistic people, some working in specialist positions. Results showed that developing new relationships with people outside their own team to signpost to, answer questions and share resources, and informal learning from autistic people, was more valued and used in practice than information gained from presentations. These results have implications in developing learning for those who need above a basic knowledge of autism and may be useful for others considering setting up an Autism Champion Network.

Identification of factors associated with diagnostic performance variation in reporting of mammograms: A review

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review aims to identify what factors are linked to diagnostic performance variation for those who interpret mammograms. Identification of influential factors has potential to contribute to the optimisation of breast cancer diagnosis. PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar databases were searched using the following terms: 'Radiology', 'Radiologist', 'Radiographer', 'Radiography', 'Mammography', 'Interpret', 'read', 'observe' 'report', 'screen', 'image', 'performance' and 'characteristics.' Exclusion criteria included articles published prior to 2000 as digital mammography was introduced at this time. Non-English articles language were also excluded. 38 of 2542 studies identified were analysed.

KEY FINDINGS

Influencing factors included, new technology, volume of reads, experience and training, availability of prior images, social networking, fatigue and time-of-day of interpretation. Advancements in breast imaging such as digital breast tomosynthesis and volume of mammograms are primary factors that affect performance as well as tiredness, time-of-day when images are interpreted, stages of training and years of experience. Recent studies emphasised the importance of social networking and knowledge sharing if breast cancer diagnosis is to be optimised.

CONCLUSION

It was demonstrated that data on radiologist performance variability is widely available but there is a paucity of data on radiographers who interpret mammographic images.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This scarcity of research needs to be addressed in order to optimise radiography-led reporting and set baseline values for diagnostic efficacy.

Look how far we have come: BREAST cancer detection education on the international stage

The development of screening mammography over 30 years has remarkedly reduced breast cancer-associated mortality by 20%-30% through detection of small cancer lesions at early stages. Yet breast screening programmes may function differently in each nation depending on the incidence rate, national legislation, local health infrastructure and training opportunities including feedback on performance. Mammography has been the frontline breast cancer screening tool for several decades; however, it is estimated that there are 15% to 35% of cancers missed on screening which are owing to perceptual and decision-making errors by radiologists and other readers. Furthermore, mammography screening is not available in all countries and the increased speed in the number of new breast cancer cases among less developed countries exceeds that of the developed world in recent decades. Studies conducted through the BreastScreen Reader Assessment Strategy (BREAST) training tools for breast screening readers have documented benchmarking and significant variation in diagnostic performances in screening mammogram test sets in different countries. The performance of the radiologists from less well-established breast screening countries such as China, Mongolia and Vietnam were significant lower in detecting early-stage cancers than radiologists from developed countries such as Australia, USA, Singapore, Italy. Differences in breast features and cancer presentations, discrepancies in the level of experiences in reading screening mammograms, the availability of high-quality national breast screening program and breast image interpretation training courses between developed and less developed countries are likely to have impact on the variation of readers' performances. Hence dedicated education training programs with the ability to tailor to different reader cohorts and different population presentations are suggested to ameliorate challenges in exposure to a range of cancer cases and improve the interpretation skills of local radiologists. Findings from this review provide a good understanding of the radiologist' performances and their improvement using the education interventions, primarily the BREAST program, which has been deployed in a large range of developing and developed countries in the last decade. Self-testing and immediate feedback loops have been shown to have important implications for benchmarking and improving the diagnostic accuracy in radiology worldwide for better breast cancer control.

Reading High Breast Density Mammograms: Differences in Diagnostic Performance between Radiologists from Hong Kong SAR/Guangdong Province in China and Australia

Background:

Variations in the performance of radiologists reading mammographic images are well reported, but key parameters explaining such variations in different countries are not fully explored. The main aim of this study is to investigate performances of Chinese (Hong Kong SAR and Guangdong Province) and Australian radiologists in interpreting dense breast mammographic images.

Methods:

A test set, contained 60 mammographic examinations with high breast density, was used to assess radiologists’ performance. Twelve Chinese and thirteen Australian radiologists read all the cases independently and were asked to identify all lesions and provide a grade from 1 to 5 to each lesion. Case sensitivity, specificity, lesion sensitivity, AUC and JAFROC were used to assess radiologists’ performances. Demographic information and reading experience were also collected from the readers. Performance scores were compared between the two populations and the relationships between performance scores and their reading experience were discovered.

Results:

For radiologists who were less than 40-year-old, lesion sensitivity, AUC and JAFROC were significantly lower in Chinese radiologists than those in Australian (52.10% vs 71.45%, p=0.043; 0.76 vs 0.84, p=0.031; 0.59 vs 0.72, p=0.045; respectively). Australian radiologists with less than 10 years of reading experience had higher AUC and JAFROC scores compared with their Chinese counterparts (0.83 vs 0.76, p=0.039; 0.70 vs 0.56, p=0.020, respectively).

Conclusions:

We found that younger Australian radiologists performed better at reading dense breast cases which is likely to be linked to intensive fellowship training, immersion in a screening program and exposure to the benefits of a performance-measuring education tool.