Quality assurance in radiographic reporting: a proposed framework

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.

How is the reporting radiographer role portrayed in published studies? A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Radiographers have been undertaking reporting tasks since the 1980's with a wealth of evidence published to support this practice. Radiographers have since developed skills in reporting all body systems, from all referral sources across a range of modalities. Radiographer reporting is now considered established and demand for radiographers in this role is rising to meet service demand. Reporting radiographers work as part of multi-professional image reporting teams, it is unclear how the radiographer role is perceived as part of this model. The aim was to review peer-reviewed literature to evaluate how the role of the reporting radiographer is portrayed and how the relationship between the two imaging professions has developed.

KEY FINDINGS

Language used to discuss the role of the reporting radiographer has changed over time. There is progress demonstrated from the practice of radiographer reporting being considered contentious or opposed to accepted and established. Recent publications focus on the importance utilising the skills of all multi-disciplinary team members in workforce structure. This features prominently when discussing future workforce design, such as with the Cancer workforce strategy and the development of the national standards for musculoskeletal reporting.

CONCLUSION

Published literature has highlighted a move towards acceptance of the reporting radiographer role. Multi-disciplinary team working, utilising the skills of all imaging team members, is essential to the success and sustainability of the imaging workforce moving forwards.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Reporting by radiographers is established and will be prominent in the reporting workforce as part of long-term workforce planning, considering skills mix to form effective and sustainable multidisciplinary reporting teams.

Image interpretation performance: A longitudinal study from novice to professional

PURPOSE

Universities need to deliver educational programmes that create radiography graduates who are ready and able to participate in abnormality detection schemes, ultimately delivering safe and reliable performance because junior doctors are exposed to the risk of misdiagnosis if unsupported by other healthcare professionals. Radiographers are ideally suited to this role having the responsibility for conducting the actual X-ray examination.

METHOD

The image interpretation performance of one cohort of student radiographers was measured upon enrolment from UCAS in the first week of university education and then again prior to graduation using RadBench (n = 23).

RESULTS

The results identified that novices have a range of natural image interpretation skills; accuracy 35-85%, sensitivity 45-100%, specificity 15-85%, mean ROC 0.691. Graduates presented a narrower range; accuracy 60-90%, sensitivity 40-100%, specificity 60-90%, mean ROC 0.841. The positive shift in graduate mean accuracy (+16%) was driven by increases in specificity (+27%) rather than sensitivity (+5%). No statistically significant differences (ANOVA) could be found between age group, gender and previous education however trends were identified. 56.5% of the population (n = 13) met a benchmark accurate standard of 80%, including one graduate who met 90%.

CONCLUSION

Image interpretation testing at the point of UCAS entry is a useful indicator of future performance and is a recommended factor for consideration as part of the selection process. Whilst image interpretation now forms an integral part of undergraduate radiography programmes, new graduates may not necessary possess the reliability in decision making to justify participation in abnormality detection schemes, highlighting the need for continuous professional development.

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.