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

Radiology image interpretation services in a low-resource setting: Medical doctors' experiences and the potential role of radiographers

INTRODUCTION

Medical doctors can encounter significant challenges in both the radiology image interpretation service and their ability to interpret images to promote effective patient management. This study aimed to explore the experiences of medical doctors in a low-resource setting regarding the image interpretation service received in state-funded hospitals and the potential role of radiographers.

METHODS

A qualitative approach with a descriptive phenomenology design was employed. Thirteen medical officers and medical interns, with a maximum of three years of experience, were purposively selected from three state-funded hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in English, and data analysis followed the conventional content analysis method using Atlas.ti for Windows (version 9).

RESULTS

Three main themes emerged from the data. The first theme was a poor image interpretation service which highlighted issues such as long turnaround times for image reporting and compromised patient management. The second theme was training and support deficiency which revealed the inadequacy of image interpretation training and the need for additional on-the-job support. The third theme was the inconspicuous radiographer role which showcased the potential opportunities for radiographers to aid in filling the gaps in the image interpretation system.

CONCLUSION

Medical doctors in this low-resource setting experience significant delays in radiology image interpretation, leading to compromised patient management. Their training in image interpretation is inadequate, and they often lack on-the-job support. Radiographers potentially play a role in image interpretation which may provide solutions to these contextual challenges.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There is a need to review and develop a comprehensive image interpretation system that effectively supports medical doctors in image interpretation, possibly involving the collaboration of radiographers.

Radiographer abnormality flagging systems in the UK - A preliminary updated assessment of practice

INTRODUCTION

Radiographer abnormality flagging systems have been in use in the UK for over 30 years, with the guidance of the Society and College of Radiographers indicated that the preliminary clinical evaluation (PCE), or comment, be the preferred system of choice. This study aimed to provide an updated assessment of current practice based upon a previous 2008 study.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was disseminated via Twitter and aimed at departmental and reporting leads. It requested information on the types of flagging and reporting systems operated, scope of the systems employed, required education of participants, and the role of audit.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 31 Trusts within the UK. Red dot systems were employed in 90% (n = 28) of sites, with 26% (n = 8) undertaking PCE. Skeletal radiographs were most commonly reviewed (90%; n = 28) followed by chest (58%; n = 18) and abdomen (32%; n = 10). Only 13% (n = 4) sites indicated if the image was normal but 71% (n = 22) allowed the radiographer to indicate if they were unsure. There was marked variation in the educational requirements and use of audit.

CONCLUSION

Compared to 2008 there appears to be quite minimal change in practices in the UK. There does appear to be some increase in the use of flagging systems generally and a higher proportion of PCE systems in comparison to red dot but the use of education and audit does not necessarily show much development in the past 15 years.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Significant conclusions cannot be drawn due to limited sample size, however, it may support further study and consideration in relation to implementation and potentially standardisation of abnormality detection systems may be justified.

The efficacy of preliminary clinical evaluation for emergency department chest radiographs with trauma presentations in pre- and post-training situations

INTRODUCTION

The chest X-ray (CXR) is the most frequently performed radiographic examination. This study evaluates radiographers' ability to localise traumatic CXR pathology and provide a preliminary clinical evaluation (PCE) for these cases.

METHODS

This observer study was performed in a district general hospital in the United Kingdom (UK). A 58-case image bank was used with 20 positive cases. Participants were awarded a maximum of three points, based on abnormality recognition and descriptive accuracy. Localisation data were recorded with ROCView. Training was delivered via short online recorded tutorials covering an introduction of a systematic search strategy for CXR, how to recognise the common abnormalities covered in the tests, how to structure a PCE and multiple practice cases to review at participants' own pace. Pre- and post-training data was recorded.

RESULTS

Nine participants completed the study. Overall, pooled sensitivity remained consistent (78.9%-78.8%) following training, specificity and accuracy showed improvement of 79.0%-89.9% and 78.9%-86.0% respectively. An increase in the number of correct localisations and PCE scores were also evident. Participants performed better at correctly identifying a pneumothorax compared to skeletal abnormalities.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in performance were evident for most participants' abnormality localisations and PCE scores, following the training intervention. The study highlighted areas of CXR PCE that may require further training, such as detecting superimposed or subtle abnormalities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study provides additional support for the development of PCE systems in additional areas of imaging practice.

Radiograph report style preferences of referrers at a district general hospital in the West Midlands, England, UK

INTRODUCTION

Many articles and guidelines have been published proposing suggestions for the optimal radiology report style; it is likely that different referrers will prefer different styles owing to a number of clinical variables. The aim of this study is to assess the x-ray report style preferences of referrers at a district general hospital.

METHOD

This electronic survey study used convenience sampling. An email invitation was sent to all referrers who had requested imaging examinations in the six months prior to the study start date. Participants were asked their opinions on the inclusion of recommendations and advice and to indicate their preferences of mock reports with combinations of the following; short/long, in-depth/brief and paragraph/bullet points. Manual analysis was undertaken in Excel.

RESULTS

There were 114 participants from the identified population of 356, giving a response rate of 32%. Nearly all participants find the inclusion of recommendations and advice to be useful (n = 109, 96%). Seventy-nine participants (69.3%) request skeletal x-ray examinations, and 100 (87.7%) request chest x-ray examinations. More than half of skeletal referrers (n = 42, 53.2%) and the majority of chest referrers (n = 45, 45%) prefer reports with short sentences, brief, bullet point format.

CONCLUSION

The most preferred report style for skeletal and chest x-ray reports is short sentences, brief with bullet-point format. These findings add to the current knowledge base and provide different report style options. Tailoring report styles could optimise service users' experience depending on clinical variables and might improve reporting workflow.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Potential differences in style preferences may exist between community and hospital referrers. Consequently, focussed research regarding the report style preferences of GPs is recommended as an area for further research.