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.

No / Demand for both Emergency Department (ED) and radiology services continues to increase across the UK while simultaneously, healthcare organisations are being asked to evaluate the quality of care provided and constrain service costs. National guidance on radiograph reporting times recommends ED radiographs are reported on day of patient attendance but in practice, delays in reporting persist. This study considers whether a radiographer led immediate reporting service for ED referrals could provide a cost-effective service improvement solution. A pragmatic multi-centre 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. Patient health gain was measured in terms of change in utilities derived from EQ-5D responses at baseline and 8 week follow-up. Resources used and the costs of an immediate reporting service were analysed at the patient level and compared to standard reporting practices. 1688 radiographic examinations were performed (1502 patients). 79 discordant radiographic interpretations were identified (n = 79/1688; 4.7%). Interpretive errors were significantly reduced within immediate reporting arm. No significant difference was noted in the relative improvement in patient perceived health status between the 2 arms of the study. The average cost saving per patient in the immediate reporting arm was £23.40. Radiographer led immediate reporting of ED radiographs is a cost-effective service development and its universal introduction could make a significant contribution to the current drive to increase service productivity within current budget constraints. / National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) programme (PB-PG-0407-13033).

Yes / To update knowledge on individual radiographer contribution to plain-film reporting workloads; to assess whether there is scope to further increase radiographer reporting capacity within this area. Methods: Reporting radiographers were invited to complete an online survey. Invitations were posted to every acute National Health Service trust in the UK whilst snowball sampling was employed via a network of colleagues, ex-colleagues and acquaintances. Information was sought regarding the demographics, geographical location and anatomical and referral scope of practice. Results: A total of 259 responses were received. 15.1% and 7.7% of respondents are qualified to report chest and abdomen radiographs, respectively. The mean time spent reporting per week is 14.5 h (range 1–37.5). 23.6% of radiographers report only referrals from emergency departments whilst 50.6% of radiographers have limitations on their practice. Conclusion: The scope of practice of reporting radiographers has increased since previous studies; however, radiographer reporting of chest and abdomen radiographs has failed to progress in line with demand. There remain opportunities to increase radiographer capacity to assist the management of reporting backlogs. Advances in knowledge: This study is the first to examine demographic factors of reporting radiographers across the UK and is one of the largest in-depth studies of UK reporting radiographers, at individual level, to date.

Yes / Neighbouring Trusts have implemented open access (walk-in) services to shorten waiting times in x-ray. Despite this, staff perceptions of their effectiveness have not yet been studied. This study forms the initial baseline evaluation phase of wider participatory action research investigating the implementation of an open access service for general practitioner musculoskeletal x-ray referrals. Staff perceptions regarding effectiveness of the current service were gathered, including their opinions regarding the effectiveness of open access services. Qualitative data were obtained via three semi-structured interviews with radiology management and two (cross-site) staff focus groups over a 2 month period. Template analysis was used to interpret the data with the aid of NVIVO 11 to facilitate analysis. Template analysis uncovered several drivers for changing the current service including waiting times, external pressures, patient choice and administrative delays. ‘Flexibility’ was the key theme to arise during discussion regarding the effectiveness of the current service. Potential for improved access was highlighted as a major benefit to the implementation of open access, however ‘workload’, ‘staffing’ and ‘communication’ were all identified as potential barriers to its implementation. Although several staff members were satisfied with current service several drivers for change were identified that need to be addressed in order to truly deliver a service that fulfils the patients' needs. Results will inform the wider participatory action research that will investigate the barriers to implementing an open access service and identify whether this is indeed a suitable method of addressing the drivers for change.

Yes / Research is critical to evidence‐based practice, and the rapid developments in technology provide opportunities to innovate and improve practice. Little is known about the research profile of the medical radiation science (MRS) profession in Australia and New Zealand (NZ). This study provides a baseline of their doctoral activity. A cross‐sectional survey of MRS professionals in Australia and NZ holding a doctorate or undertaking doctoral studies, was performed using an online tool (Bristol Online Survey®, Bristol, UK). A chain‐referral sampling technique was adopted for data collection. An email invitation with a link to the survey was generated and distributed through email and social media. The survey contained questions related to participant demographics, doctoral status, qualification route, funding and employment. There were 63 responses to the survey comprising 50.8% diagnostic radiographers (DRs; n = 32), 23.8% radiation therapists (RTs; n = 15), with the remaining 25.4% (n = 16) equally split between sonographers and nuclear medicine technologists (NMTs). A total of 40 (63.5%) of respondents had completed their doctoral qualification. In NZ, only DRs held a doctoral award constituting 0.3% of DRs and 0.2% of the total registered MRS population. In Australia, there was a greater proportion of doctoral NMTs (n = 8/1098; 0.7%) than RTs (n = 15/2394; 0.6%) and DRs (n = 27/12,001; 0.2%). Similar to other countries, findings show a very small percentage of doctoral MRS professionals in Australia and NZ. Strategies to engage and support individuals in research, up to and beyond doctoral study, need to be embedded in practice.

No / There is limited evidence of the impact of radiographers working in advanced roles beyond task substitution. This study reviews the contribution of advanced (and consultant) practitioner radiographers to service delivery whilst reporting radiographs and demonstrates the impact this has on patients and staff, both internal and external to the imaging department. The study was a prospective exploratory study using activity diaries to allow interval sampling when individuals were rostered to report. Data was coded using a compiled list of activities and recorded in 15-min intervals over the period of one week. Thirteen radiographers who independently report radiographs participated across 6 locations in a busy multisite English National Health Service (NHS) Trust. Radiographers reported the majority of the examinations during the study period (n = 4512/5671; 79.6%). The total number of coded activities recorded over the study period was 1527, equating to 380.5 relative hours. The majority of available time was spent reporting, including dictating and verifying the reports of colleagues or trainees, although 69.5% of reporting time was interrupted. Based upon the hours of reporting there was an average of 19.3 reports (patient episodes) produced per hour. Direct patient care tasks and support for staff in decision making were regularly documented. Supplementary tasks included administrative activity, amendments to rotas, preparing presentations and documenting incidents identified during reporting. This study has demonstrated the breadth and complexity of the activities performed by advanced practice radiographers. The findings confirm their role in supporting service delivery beyond image interpretation.

Yes / Objectives: Many organisations struggle to clearly differentiate the radiographer consultant role from advanced or specialist practice, with newly appointed consultant practitioners often illprepared for working at this level. This article discusses the design, implementation and validation of an outcomes framework for benchmarking competencies for trainee or new-in-post consultant radiographers. Methods: Five experienced radiographers from different clinical specialisms were seconded to a twelve month consultant trainee post, guided by a locally-devised outcomes framework. A longitudinal qualitative study explored, from the radiographers' perspective, the impact of the outcomes framework on the transition to consultant practice and beyond. Data collection included semi-structured interviews (months 1, 6 and 12), validation via a focus group (month 18) and a group interview (5 years). Results: Early interactions with framework objectives were mechanistic, but as participants better understood the role more creative approaches emerged. Despite diverse clinical expertise, the framework facilitated parity between participants, promoting transparency and credibility which was important in how the consultant role was perceived. All participants achieved all framework outcomes and were subsequently appointed to substantive consultant radiographer positions. Conclusion This outcomes framework facilitates experienced radiographers to successfully transition into consultant radiographers, enabling them to meet multiple non-clinical targets while continuing to work effectively within a changing clinical environment. It is the first validated benchmarking tool designed to support the transition to radiographer consultant practice. Adoption of the tool will provide a standardised measure of consultant radiographer outcomes that will promote inter-organisational transferability hitherto unseen in the UK. / Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust Hospitals

Yes / Consultant radiographer numbers remain low despite the ongoing capacity challenges in diagnostic imaging. This is compounded by the limited evidence of how such roles can positively impact on service delivery, particularly in relation to their leadership expectations. Aims: To examine the activities undertaken by consultant radiographers; evidence the impact of the roles, and consider whether the roles encompass the four domains of consultant practice. Method: Six consultant radiographers employed in a single NHS Trust completed an activity diary over a period of 7 days. Interval sampling every 15 minutes enabled the collection of a large volume of complex data. Findings: All consultants worked beyond their contacted hours. The documented activities demonstrate the breadth of the roles and confirmed that the participants were undertaking all four core functions of consultant practice. Conclusion: The impact of the roles stretched beyond the local department and organisation to the health system and wider profession.

No / Accepted definitions and descriptions of advanced practice offer generic ideals for the development of advanced radiographer practitioner roles. However, they fail to specify a development pathway necessary for a clinical practitioner to attain advanced practitioner status and lack of clarity persists around the definition of advanced practice within the context of radiography [Price R. Critical factors influencing the changing scope of practice: the defining periods. Imaging & Oncology 2005;June:6–11.]. This paper will consider the expectations of practitioner and advanced practitioner competencies within the context of radiography practice in the United Kingdom and suggest criteria for an advanced practice development pathway that may be adopted by individual radiographers, or their managers, to assist professional development within any imaging speciality.

Yes / To survey the diagnostic radiography workforce in the United Kingdom (UK) at an organisational level to ascertain the scope of advanced practice and compliance with Health Education England standards for multiprofessional advanced clinical practice (ACP). 174 diagnostic imaging departments were invited to participate in a cross-sectional electronic survey focused upon advanced level practice and their educational and accreditation expectations (October-December 2019). Breast imaging, computed tomography, fluoroscopy, interventional radiology, lithotripsy, magnetic resonance imaging and projectional radiography were included. A total of 97 responses were received, of which 79 were eligible for inclusion (45%). Respondents reported advanced-level practice roles across all imaging modalities, which included clinical reporting, procedural-based and combined roles. Radiograph and mammogram reporting were most prevalent (95 and 67% of Trusts), with fluoroscopy the most frequent procedure-only role (25%). Only 39% of trusts required adherence to the four pillars of ACP within job descriptions, and only 12% requiring a full Masters qualification. Diagnostic radiographer reporting and procedure-based roles in the NHS are varied and widespread. However, inconsistencies in fulfilment against the expected standards for advanced practice exist. Realignment of advanced-level roles to delineate enhanced and advanced clinical practice may ensure consistency between roles and professions. A requirement for accreditation as an advanced (clinical) practitioner with adherence to advanced practice requirements could therefore provide value to accreditation for both individual practitioners and Trusts. Within the UK, diagnostic radiographer roles previously self-identified as advanced-level practice may be termed enhanced practice when not adhering to expected ACP standards.