Interpretation of trauma radiographs by radiographers and nurses in the UK: a comparative study

Australian radiographer roles in the emergency department; evidence of regulatory compliance to improve patient safety - A narrative review

OBJECTIVES

Using a narrative approach, this paper aims to determine the extent of Australian radiographers' regulatory compliance to improve patient safety when performing appendicular X-ray and non-contrast brain computed tomography (CT) in the Emergency Department (ED).

KEY FINDINGS

A narrative review explored relevant literature and key regulatory policy. Ten documents were identified, three main themes were developed related to the radiographer roles in X-ray request justification, dose optimisation and preliminary image evaluation (PIE). Radiographers were equally aware of justification and optimisation pre and post the introduction of a Medical Code of Practice. The collective PIE accuracy of radiographers remained unaffected by changes in mode of PIE delivery and regulatory factors but varied based on the anatomical region.

CONCLUSION

While current Australian regulations mandate radiographer request justification, dose optimisation and PIE, the degree of compliance by Australian radiographers remains uncertain. Current literature provides evidence that radiographers can improve patient care and safety through justification, optimisation, and PIE delivery. Change in workplace practice, supported by key stakeholders including radiologists, is essential to integrate radiographers' functions into routine ED clinical practice. Further research is required to audit radiographers' regulatory compliance to improve patient safety.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Patient safety in ED can be improved with timely and accurate diagnosis provided by radiographers. Radiographers have a professional obligation to adhere to the capabilities and standards for safe medical radiation practice defined by Australian regulations. Therefore, radiographers must justify the X-ray request, optimise the radiation dose where appropriate and communicate urgent or unexpected findings to the referrer.

The accuracy of adult limb radiograph interpretation by emergency nurse practitioners: A prospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

One of the extensions to practice for the emergency nurse practitioner role is to appropriately order and interpret radiographs in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the accuracy in interpreting isolated adult limb radiographs between emergency nurse practitioners and emergency physicians.

DESIGN

A prospective comparative study was undertaken.

SETTING

Emergency department in a large metropolitan hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

200 adult patients with isolated limb injuries were consented.

METHODS

Six emergency nurse practitioners and ten emergency physicians participated. One emergency physician and emergency nurse practitioner independently clinically assessed each patient, determined the need for radiograph and separately recorded their interpretation of the radiograph as either definite fracture, no fracture or possible fracture. A single consultant radiologist reviewed each radiograph and their interpretation was seen as the gold standard. The sensitivity and specificity of emergency physicians and emergency nurse practitioners were calculated. To measure the level of agreement between the two-clinician groups, the weighted Kappa statistic was used.

RESULTS

The sensitivity for the emergency nurse practitioners was 91% and 88% for the emergency physicians. The specificity for the emergency nurse practitioners was 85% and for the emergency physicians 91%. The weighted Kappa on the presence of a fracture between the emergency nurse practitioners and emergency physicians was 0.83.

CONCLUSIONS

This study validates the clinical and diagnostic skills of emergency nurse practitioners assessed in the interpretation of isolated adult limb injury radiographs.

The impact of immediate reporting on interpretive discrepancies and patient referral pathways within the emergency department: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether an immediate reporting service for musculoskeletal trauma reduces interpretation errors and positively impacts on patient referral pathways.

METHODS

A pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial was undertaken. 1502 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to an immediate or delayed reporting arm and treated according to group assignment. Assessment was made of concordance in image interpretation between emergency department (ED) clinicians and radiology; discharge and referral pathways; and patient journey times.

RESULTS

1688 radiographic examinations were performed (1502 patients). 91 discordant interpretations were identified (n=91/1688; 5.4%) with a greater number of discordant interpretations noted in the delayed reporting arm (n=67/849, 7.9%). In the immediate reporting arm, the availability of a report reduced, but did not eliminate, discordance in interpretation (n=24/839, 2.9%). No significant difference in number of patients discharged, referred to hospital clinics or admitted was identified. However, patient ED recalls were significantly reduced (z=2.66; p=0.008) in the immediate reporting arm, as were the number of short-term inpatient bed days (5 days or less) (z=3.636; p<0.001). Patient journey time from ED arrival to discharge or admission was equivalent (z=0.79, p=0.432).

CONCLUSION

Immediate reporting significantly reduced ED interpretive errors and prevented errors that would require patient recall. However, immediate reporting did not eliminate ED interpretative errors or change the number of patients discharged, referred to hospital clinics or admitted overall.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This is the first study to consider the wider impact of immediate reporting on the ED patient pathway as a whole and hospital resource usage.