Yes / Objective: Clinical Imaging contributes to screening, diagnosis, planning and monitoring of treatment and surveillance in cancer care. This literature review summarises evidence about radiographer reporting to help imaging service providers respond to Health Education England's 2017 Cancer Workforce Plan project to expand radiographer reporting in clinical service provision. Key findings: Papers published between 1992 and 2018 were reviewed (n ¼ 148). Evidence related to dynamic examinations (fluoroscopy, ultrasound) and mammography was excluded. Content was analysed and summarised using the following headings: clinical scope of practice, responsibilities, training, assessment, impact in practice and barriers to expansion. Radiographer reporting is well established in the United Kingdom. Scope of practice varies individually and geographically. Deployment of appropriately trained reporting radiographers is helping the NHS maintain high quality clinical imaging service provision and deliver a cost-effective increase in diagnostic capacity. Conclusion: Working within multiprofessional clinical imaging teams, within a defined scope of practice and with access to medical input when required, reporting radiographers augment capacity in diagnostic pathways and release radiologist time for other complex clinical imaging responsibilities.

Yes / 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.

Yes / Objective: 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 / Introduction: Prior studies have demonstrated inconsistent development and utilisation of radiographers in the reporting of radiographs, and there is ongoing consideration of the level at which such radiographers should be educated to and operating at. This study aimed to explore and evaluate expectation and utilisation of radiographers currently, or training in, reporting in projection radiography across one integrated care system (ICS). Methods: A multi-method approach was utilised, with document analysis of projection radiography reporting role job descriptions and person specifications and an online survey of managers and clinical leads. A single ICS in the north of England formed the setting for the study. Results: This study demonstrated variation in implementation and utilisation of the role across trusts within the ICS. Inconsistencies in scope, expected underpinning education and role activity were identified. Radiographers autonomously reporting in projection radiography were titled advanced practitioners, however are not expected to achieve national educational standards for such roles and are not empowered to work at this level of practice by their employers. It was acknowledged that staffing pressures hinder appropriate role utilisation and reporting capacity. Conclusion: Inconsistent development and utilisation of radiographers in such roles may hamper collaboration and service delivery across a network. Identifying variation and working towards role standardisation could promote cross-organisational working and improve career progression opportunities. Implications for practice: Scoping the reporting radiographer workforce may assist and guide future imaging service and workforce planning. / The full-text of this article will be released for public view at the end of the publisher embargo on 24 Sep 2024.

Yes / Introduction: Whilst there is increasing demand on radiology services in the UK, pressures are restricting the expansion of the multi-professional workforce. A pilot academy for radiography reporting was established to augment the traditional university and clinical education in a simulated environment using focussed teaching and real image worklists in a dedicated environment away from departments. Methods: Located at a facility to replicate the clinical reporting environment, the emphasis of the nine-month pilot was to provide extensive ‘hands-on’ training to eight trainees. Evaluation of the academy was undertaken through focus groups, telephone interviews, and online surveys to consider the experiences of the trainees and their managers and mentors. Results: There was overwhelming support for the academy from trainees, mentors, and managers. Key benefits included relieving pressures on department and mentors; providing an intense, structured, and safe environment to learn; and, perhaps most importantly, an extensive and cohesive peer-support network. Issues identified included conflict within departments due to differences in reporting style and the need for greater collaboration between the university, academy, and departments. Conclusion: The use of simulation in education is widely researched, however, there are a number of key factors that need to be considered when implementing it into practise. Peer-support and reflection is seen as essential for its success. Extensive dedicated time to focus on reporting alongside peers can support the development of these skills away from the clinical environment and as such can reduce pressure on service delivery and positively influence learner outcomes. / The pilot academy received funding from the NHS Vanguard scheme (Working Together NHS Vanguard) for purchase of equipment and the salaries of the clinical educator (pro-rata). The university fees and backfill payments were funded by Health Education England.