No / Radiography aspires to be a research active profession, but there is limited information regarding the number of individuals with, or studying for, a doctoral award. This study aims to profile UK doctoral radiographers; including their chosen award, approach and employment status. This was a prospective cohort study utilising an electronic survey. No formal database of doctoral radiographers existed therefore a snowball sampling method was adopted. The study sample was radiographers (diagnostic and therapeutic) based in the UK who were registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and who held, or were studying for, a doctoral award. A total of 90 unique responses were received within the timescale. The respondents comprised 58 females (64.4%) and the majority were diagnostic radiographers (n = 71/90; 78.9%). The traditional PhD was the most common award, although increasing numbers were pursuing Education or Professional Doctorates. An overall increase in doctoral studies is observed over time, but was greatest amongst those working in academic institutions, with 63.3% of respondents (n = 57/90) working solely within a university, and a further 10% employed in a clinical–academic role (n = 9/90). This study has demonstrated that radiography is emerging as a research active profession, with increasing numbers of radiographers engaged in study at a doctoral level. This should provide a platform for the future development of academic and clinical research.

No

Yes / Consultant posts were developed to strengthen strategic leadership whilst maintaining front line service responsibilities and clinical expertise. The nursing profession has attempted to develop tools to enable individuals to evaluate their own practice and consider relevant measurable outcomes. This study evaluated the feasibility of transferring such a nursing ‘toolkit’ to another health profession. Method: This evaluation was structured around a one-day workshop where a nurse consultant impact toolkit was appraised and tested within the context of consultant radiographic practice. The adapted toolkit was subsequently validated using a larger sample at a national meeting of consultant radiographers. Results: There was broad agreement that the tools could be adopted for use by radiographers although several themes emerged in relation to perceived gaps within the nursing template, confirming the initial exercise. This resulted in amendments to the original scope and a proposed new evaluation tool. Conclusion: The impact toolkit could help assess individual and collaborat ive role impact at a local and national level. The framework provides consultant radiographers with an opportunity to understand and highlight the contribution their roles have on patients, staff, their organisation and the wider profession.

No / The College of Radiographers has called for ‘Red Dot’ schemes to evolve and has recommended the development of radiographer commenting. The implementation of a radiographer comment scheme assumes that radiographers previously participating in ‘red dot’ schemes have been accurately recognising radiographic abnormalities and are, therefore, able to comment upon, and describe, such radiographic appearances. Research evidence to support such an assumption is sparse. This study compares the ability of radiographers attending a short course on musculoskeletal trauma to ‘red dot’ and comment on A&E radiographic appearances. Methods: This study adopted a pre-test, post-test approach. One hundred and twenty one radiographers attending a short course on musculoskeletal trauma (Bradford Red Dot Course) were invited to undertake an assessment of their ability to recognise (‘red dot’) and describe (comment upon) radiographic abnormalities at the start and end of the short course. Results: One hundred and fifteen radiographers (n = 115/121; 95.0%) completed both the pre- and post-training assessments. Post-training mean scores per case improved on average by 9.8% [p = 0.012; 95% CI: 2.4, 17.1] for ‘red dots’ and 12.7% [p = 0.007; 95% CI: 3.8, 21.5] for commenting. However, the difference between mean ‘red dot’ and commenting scores remained similar with mean radiographer comment scores being 13.7% less than mean ‘red dot’ scores pre-training and 10.8% less post-training. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that the accuracy of radiographer comments was significantly reduced when compared to the accuracy of ‘red dots’ for the same radiographic images. The clinical significance of these findings for departments wanting to move from a ‘red dot’ system to a radiographer commenting scheme is that without appropriate training and audit, the quality of service and assistance to the A&E department could be significantly reduced.

Yes / Objectives: Unlike the technological advances in cross-sectional imaging, the adoption of CR and DR has been relatively overlooked in terms of the additional radiographer skills and competences required for optimal practice. Furthermore, projection radiography is often referred to as basic, plain or other words suggesting simplicity or entry-level skill requirements. Radiographers’ professional identity is connected with the discourse expressed via the language used in daily practice and consequently, if the perception of projection radiography is regarded as simple practice not requiring much reflection or complex decision-making, apathy and carelessness may arise. The purpose of this narrative review was to raise projection radiography from its longstanding lowly place and re-position it as a specialist imaging field. Key findings: Danish pre-registration radiography curricula contain little mention of projection radiography and a low proportion (n ¼ 17/144; 11.8%) of Danish radiography students chose to focus on projection radiography within publicly available BSc. theses between 2016 and 2020 as compared to topics related to CT and MRI (n ¼ 60/144; 41.7%). Conclusion: By changing how we as the profession perceive the role and position of projection radiography, we can start to rebuild its lost prestige and demand a greater, more detailed and clinically relevant educational offering from academic partners. For this to commence, the language and terminology we use to describe ourselves and tasks undertaken must reflect the complexity of the profession. Implications for practice: Regardless of imaging modality, every patient should be assured that a radiographer with expertise in acquiring images of diagnostic quality undertakes their examination. Reclaiming the prestige of projection radiography may lead students and radiographers to recognize projection radiography as a demanding specialist field for the benefit of the patients.

No / Errors in the interpretation of diagnostic images in the emergency department are a persistent problem internationally. To address this issue, a number of risk reduction strategies have been suggested but only radiographer abnormality detection schemes (RADS) have been widely implemented in the UK. This study considers the variation in RADS operation and communication in light of technological advances and changes in service operation. A postal survey of all NHS hospitals operating either an Emergency Department or Minor Injury Unit and a diagnostic imaging (radiology) department (n = 510) was undertaken between July and August 2011. The questionnaire was designed to elicit information on emergency service provision and details of RADS. 325 questionnaires were returned (n = 325/510; 63.7%). The majority of sites (n = 288/325; 88.6%) operated a RADS with the majority (n = 227/288; 78.8%) employing a visual ‘flagging’ system as the only method of communication although symbols used were inconsistent and contradictory across sites. 61 sites communicated radiographer findings through a written proforma (paper or electronic) but this was run in conjunction with a flagging system at 50 sites. The majority of sites did not have guidance on the scope or operation of the ‘flagging’ or written communication system in use. RADS is an established clinical intervention to reduce errors in diagnostic image interpretation within the emergency setting. The lack of standardisation in communication processes and practices alongside the rapid adoption of technology has increased the potential for error and miscommunication.

Yes / Lung cancer remains a major cause of preventable death and early diagnosis is critical to improving survival chances. The chest X-ray (CXR) remains the most common initial investigation, but clinical pathways need to support timely diagnosis through, where necessary, escalation of abnormal findings to ensure priority reporting and early CT scan. This single-centre study included a retrospective evaluation of a rapid lung cancer CXR pathway in its first year of operation (May 2018-April 2019). The pathway was initially designed for primary care referrals but could also be used for any CXR demonstrating abnormal findings. A parallel cross-sectional survey of radiographers explored their understanding, adherence and concerns regarding their role in the pathway operation. Primary care referrals on the rapid diagnostic pathway were low (n = 51/21,980; 0.2%), with 11 (21.6%) requiring a CT scan. A further 333 primary care CXR were escalated by the examining radiographer, with 100 (30.0%) undergoing a CT scan. Overall, 64 of the CT scans (57.7%) were abnormal or demonstrated suspicious findings warranting further investigation. There were 39 confirmed primary lung carcinomas, most with advanced disease. Survey responses showed that most radiographers were familiar with the pathway but some expressed concerns regarding their responsibilities and limited knowledge of CXR pathologies. This baseline evaluation of the rapid lung cancer pathway demonstrated poor referral rates from primary care and identified the need for improved engagement. Radiographer escalation of abnormal findings is an effective adjunct but underlines the need for appropriate awareness, training, and ongoing support. Engagement of the multiprofessional team is critical in new pathway implementation. Rapid diagnostic pathways can enable early diagnosis and the radiographer has a key role to play in their success.

No / This case study describes a qualitative investigation of the experiences of 14 experienced mammography radiographers who successfully undertook a formal programme of education and training in stereotactic needle core biopsy (SNCB) of the breast. They now routinely perform SNCB within symptomatic and screening breast services in a variety of NHS hospitals across the country. All 14 radiographers completed a semi-structured postal questionnaire approximately six months after the end of the course. A tentative theory derived from the data suggests that the professional challenge associated with radiographer-performed SNCB builds personal confidence and effects positive change. Three main categories emerging from the data e challenge, confidence and change are underpinned by two main themes e educational, professional and service drivers that promote the realisation of goals and vision; and personal, peer and external motivation sustained by respect, recognition and reward. SNCB role extension as explored in this study is having a positive and transformational impact on patient users of breast diagnostic clinical services and on the professional health carers providing them. The key drivers for this as identified in the study are a formal educational experience, professional role extension opportunities and the NHS modernisation process. The participants experienced positive change as individuals and as professional breast cancer multidisciplinary team members. Academic and financial rewards, respect and recognition from colleagues across professional disciplines and from patients, were key motivators that sustained the process. This study indicates that radiographer-performed SNCB can help deliver the NHS Plan and the NHS Cancer Plan and in doing so has the potential to improve the working lives of health care professionals and ultimately to improve the quality of care for patients.

No / Radiographer reporting of plain film radiographs is an established role in the UK. Despite this previous research has demonstrated widespread inconsistencies in implementation, scope and utilisation. A cross-sectional postal survey was undertaken to provide a longitudinal insight into changes in radiographer reporting practice. The sample comprised all individual hospital sites in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man with both a radiology and trauma service A response rate of 63.7% (n = 325/510) was achieved. Reporting radiographers were in place at 179 sites (55.1%) but less likely to be employed at sites with a minor injury unit rather than a full emergency department (χ2 = 71.983; p < 0.001; d.f. = 1). Radiographer utilisation has increased since 2007, although local barriers to implementation and activity were identified. Geographical variation was evident in relation to reporter employment and anatomical scope. A significant association was noted between broader anatomical scope and a wider range of referral sources (χ2 = 34.441; p < 0.001; d.f. = 1). Delayed reporting of radiographs remains the standard service delivery model across the UK. This study confirms the significant contribution that radiographers are making to reporting capacity in the UK, although there continue to be geographical variations, particularly around anatomical scope and referral groups.

No / Assessment of image interpretation competency is commonly undertaken through review of a defined image test bank. Content of these image banks has been criticised for the high percentage of abnormal examinations which contrasts with lower reported incidences of abnormal radiographs in clinical practice. As a result, questions have been raised regarding the influence of prevalence bias on the accuracy of interpretive decision making. This article describes a new and novel approach to the design of musculoskeletal image test banks. Three manufactured image banks were compiled following a standard academic menu in keeping with previous studies. Three further image test banks were constructed to reflect local clinical workload within a single NHS Trust. Eighteen radiographers, blinded to the method of test bank composition, were randomly assigned 2 test banks to review (1 manufactured, 1 clinical workload). Comparison of interpretive accuracy was undertaken. Inter-rater agreement was moderate to good for all image banks (manufactured: range k = 0.45–0.68; clinical workload: k = 0.49–0.62). A significant difference in mean radiographer sensitivity was noted between test bank designs (manufactured 87.1%; clinical workload 78.5%; p = 0.040, 95% CI = 0.4–16.8; t = 2.223). Relative parity in radiographer specificity and overall accuracy was observed. This study confirms the findings of previous research that high abnormality prevalence image banks over-estimate the ability of observers to identify abnormalities. Assessment of interpretive competency using an image bank that reflects local clinical practice is a better approach to accurately establish interpretive competency and the learning development needs of individual practitioners.