Diagnostic reference levels in spinal CT: Jordanian assessments and global benchmarks.

BACKGROUND: To reduce radiation dose and subsequent risks, several legislative documents in different countries describe the need for Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs). Spinal radiography is a common and high-dose examination. Therefore, the aim of this work was to establish the DRL for Computed Tomography (CT) examinations of the spine in healthcare institutions across Jordan. METHODS: Data was retrieved from the picture archiving and communications system (PACS), which included the CT Dose Index (CTDI (vol) ) and Dose Length Product (DLP). The median radiation dose values of the dosimetric indices were calculated for each site. DRL values were defined as the 75th percentile distribution of the median CTDI (vol)  and DLP values. RESULTS: Data was collected from 659 CT examinations (316 cervical spine and 343 lumbar-sacral spine). Of the participants, 68% were males, and the patients' mean weight was 69.7 kg (minimum = 60; maximum = 80, SD = 8.9). The 75th percentile for the DLP of cervical and LS-spine CT scans in Jordan were 565.2 and 967.7 mGy.cm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This research demonstrates a wide range of variability in CTDI (vol)  and DLP values for spinal CT examinations; these variations were associated with the acquisition protocol and highlight the need to optimize radiation dose in spinal CT examinations.

Mind the gap: Gender disparities in authorship in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences.

INTRODUCTION: Research studies tracking gender and academic publication productivity in healthcare find gender disparities in research activity, publication, and authorship. Article authorship is one of the important metrics to track when seeking to understand gender inequality in academic career advancement. Research on gender disparities in publication productivity in the field of Medical Radiation Science (MRS) is very limited thus this study analyses and explains potential gender differences in article authorship and acceptance for publication in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences (JMIRS) for a 5-year period (2017-2021). METHODS: Gender was inferred based on the author's first name or title (e.g., Mr, Mrs or Ms). For those who left the title blank or reported as 'Dr' or 'Prof,' a series of steps were taken to identify their gender. Where gender was impossible to ascribe, these authors were excluded. Descriptive and inferential statistics are reported for the study population. Descriptive and inferential statistics are used. Percentages of females are reported, and males constitute the other portion. Chi-square, slope analysis and z-tests were used to test hypotheses. RESULTS: Results show that female authorship overall and in all categories of authorship placement (i.e., first, last and corresponding) increased over the timeframe reviewed. The percentage gain in the increase was higher than that for male authorship. However, male authorship started from a higher baseline in 2017 and has also increased year on year and overall, as well as in each placement category examined. More female authors were in the MRS sub-specialism Radiation Therapy (RT) than in the other MRS sub-specialisms. Analysis of the acceptance rate of articles with female authors shows a weak downward trend, and this may be related to higher submission and acceptance rates of articles by male authors during the same period. CONCLUSION: Male authors are overrepresented in all categories, which raises questions about the persistence of gender disparities in JMIRS authorship and article acceptance. Positive trends in female authorship indicate progress, yet there is the persistence of the significant under-representation of women in the Medical Radiation Sciences workforce in academic publishing. Recruiting more males to address the gender imbalance in the profession should not be at the expense of females' career progression.

An investigation into the knowledge, attitudes, and practice of radiation protection in interventional radiology and cardiac catheter-laboratories.

BACKGROUND: According to current literature, there is a lack of information regarding the radiation protection (RP) practices of interventional radiology (IR) and cardiology catheter laboratory (CCL) staff. This study aims to determine the RP practices of staff within IR and CCLs internationally and to suggest areas for improvement. METHODS: A cross-sectional study in the form of an online questionnaire was developed. Participation was advertised via online platforms and through email. Participants were included if they were healthcare professionals currently working in IR and CCLs internationally. Questionnaire design included Section 1 demographic data, Section 2 assessed RP training and protocols, Section 3 surveyed the use of different types of RP lead shields, both personal and co-worker use and Section 4 assessed other methods of minimising radiation dose within practice. Questions were a mix of open and closed ended, descriptive statistics were used for closed questions and thematic analysis was employed for open ended responses. RESULTS: A total of 178 responses to the questionnaire were recorded with 130 (73 %) suitable for analysis. Most respondents were female (n = 94, 72 %) and were radiographers (n = 97, 75 %). Only 68 (53 %) had received training, the majority receiving this in-house (n = 54, 79 %). 118 (98 %) of respondents had departmental protocols in place for RP. Radiology managers (n = 106, 82 %) were most likely to contribute to such protocols. Multiple methods of dose minimisation exist, these include low-dose fluoroscopy, staff rotation, radiation dose audits and minimal time in the controlled areas. Respondents reported that lead apron shields were wore personally by 99 % of respondents and by co-workers in 95 % of cases. CONCLUSION: The practices of RP by IR and CCL staff in this survey was variable and can be improved. The unavailability of basic radiation protection tools and RP specific training courses/modules were some of the reasons for sub-optimal self-protection against ionising radiation reported by respondents.

An investigation into the current perceptions of Irish Radiographers regarding patient-practitioner communication.

INTRODUCTION: Many of the tasks performed by radiographers rely on effective communication with patients. This study aims to evaluate radiographers' experiences communicating with patients to determine what communication skills they believe they have, challenges they encounter and any familiarity with communication tools. It also assesses their willingness to accept further training and utilise recognised scripted communication tools, such as AIDET (Acknowledge, Introduce, Duration, Explanation and Thank you). METHODS: Data were collected using an online survey deployed using the MS Forms platform. The survey consisted of 42 questions: 12 qualitative 'open-ended' questions and 30 'close-ended' quantitative questions. The survey remained open between March and May 2022. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative responses using thematic content analysis. Cross distribution analysis, basic percentages, and graphic bar charts were used for quantitative data analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and nine radiographers completed the questionnaire. Quantitative analysis found that 84 % (n = 87) of radiographers had not received additional post-qualification training in patient communication. Five communication themes emerged from the thematic analysis; (1) Expectations, (2) Education, (3) Improvements, (4) Errors, and (5) Communication Tools. The scripted communication tool AIDET, according to 86 % (n = 89) of respondents, was perceived to be potential helpful in improving radiographer-patient interactions. CONCLUSION: Radiographers do not believe they have received adequate training for communicating with patients and would like to receive additional training and education. AIDET could be a useful communication tool as a starting guide for less experienced radiographers. There is a need for further studies that explore the use and effectiveness of scripted communication tools in radiographers' communications skills. In addition, additional post-registration training opportunities need to be available for radiographers in patient communication.

Radiographers' perceptions of the experiences of patients with dementia attending the radiology department.

BACKGROUND: Patients with dementia frequently present to the Radiology Department. However, stigmas have been recorded amongst radiographers surrounding imaging persons with dementia (PwD). This study aimed to investigate the impact of PwD attending the Radiology Department for imaging and the resultant effects to all patients, radiographers, and the Department from the perspectives of the examining radiographer. METHODS: A paper-based questionnaire of radiographers' perceptions and experiences of individual examinations 'termed an interaction form' was created and made available in a public hospital in Ireland for a period of eight weeks. Radiographers completed the interaction form collecting data regarding individual imaging examinations of PwD. The form comprised sixteen closed and one open-ended question on the radiographers' individual perspectives of PwDs' abilities and distress levels, carers and comforters and their role in the examination, what the radiographer found helpful in the interaction, and any adverse events. Data were analysed using a combination of descriptive analysis and thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-three interaction forms were completed by the participating radiographers. The modality most commonly represented in the survey was general X-ray (58%). Radiographers reported 84% of examinations for PwD required extra time, with 27% of examinations required repeat imaging and 69% of patients appeared distressed. A carer helped facilitate the completion of 77% of examinations. Qualitative data indicated that distractive and communicative techniques were used by radiographers to make the patient feel more comfortable and help with examination success. CONCLUSION: PwD often require more time for radiological examinations, they often need repeat imaging and re-scheduling of an examination at a more appropriate time. These factors need to be considered when scheduling and performing radiological examinations. Patient distress was frequently encountered, this area may benefit from further research and dedicated practitioner training which could help drive improvements in patient experience.

Black box no more: A cross-sectional multi-disciplinary survey for exploring governance and guiding adoption of AI in medical imaging and radiotherapy in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Medical Imaging and radiotherapy (MIRT) are at the forefront of artificial intelligence applications. The exponential increase of these applications has made governance frameworks necessary to uphold safe and effective clinical adoption. There is little information about how healthcare practitioners in MIRT in the UK use AI tools, their governance and associated challenges, opportunities and priorities for the future. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was open from November to December 2022 to MIRT professionals who had knowledge or made use of AI tools, as an attempt to map out current policy and practice and to identify future needs. The survey was electronically distributed to the participants. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and inferential statistics on the SPSS statistical software. Content analysis was employed for the open-ended questions. RESULTS: Among the 245 responses, the following were emphasised as central to AI adoption: governance frameworks, practitioner training, leadership, and teamwork within the AI ecosystem. Prior training was strongly correlated with increased knowledge about AI tools and frameworks. However, knowledge of related frameworks remained low, with different professionals showing different affinity to certain frameworks related to their respective roles. Common challenges and opportunities of AI adoption were also highlighted, with recommendations for future practice.

Risk factors associated with the development of osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in Head and Neck cancer patients in Ireland: A 10-year retrospective review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSES: To assess osteoradionecrosis (ORN) incidence in a population of Irish Head and Neck cancer (HNC) patients, and assess precipitating factors that may contribute to ORN development to aid prevention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Review of 1050 HNC patients attending the Dental Oncology Clinic, CUDSH between 2010 and 2021 identified 47 cases of ORN. Medical, dental and radiotherapy records of these forty-seven patients were retrospectively reviewed. Patient-, tumour-, and treatment-related variables were investigated in association with osteoradionecrosis development. Analysis conducted using SPSS, Pearson's Chi-square test (p < 0.05), and ordinal regression model. RESULTS: ORN incidence was 4.4 %. Median time from radiotherapy (RT) to ORN development was 9.5 months (range 1-98.5 months). ORN development within the mandibular surgical site was significant (p <.001), presenting at a higher Notani grade (p =.002), in mid-mandibular body region (p =.028), at radiation doses ≥ 60 Gy (p =.035), due to induced causes (p =.029), and without resolution (p =.019). CONCLUSION: This is the first retrospective study of ORN in HNC patients in Ireland over 10-year period. ORN incidence was extremely low (4.4%). As patients reported high smoking/alcohol use and poor dental attendance pre-diagnosis, this suggests intensive dental intervention pre/post-diagnosis contributed to low ORN rates. Mandibular surgery pre-RT increased risk of developing ORN at the surgical site. Therefore, we recommend future treatment planning should contour the surgical site, designating it an organ at risk (OAR), assigning a dose constraint, where oncologically possible, with emphasis on reducing the hot-spot to this region; findings reinforce importance of life-long expert dental care to reduce ORN incidence.

Evolving radiographic practice: Identifying possible skill requirements for future radiographers practicing in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

AIM: This study aims to identify the prospective skill requirements for future radiographers practising in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Such information will inform educational institutions, healthcare organisations, and policymakers in developing effective strategies. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving currently practising radiographers, nuclear medicine technologists, sonographers, and radiation therapists in the UAE (n =74). A comprehensive survey questionnaire was developed and validated through piloting and expert consultations. Ethical approval was obtained, and data were collected through purposive sampling. Descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, Chi-square tests, and factor analysis were employed in the data analysis. RESULTS: The results showed that 73%, 47.3%, 43.2%, 40.5%, 39.2%, 33.8% interested in radiology safety, image interpretation, interprofessional and interpersonal skills, research and managerial skills, Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) administration and AI (Artificial Intelligence) and, clinical supervision and assessment, respectively. The factor analysis showed four factors factor considered for CPD training are training settings (15.12), training topics (1.88), CPD credits (1.72) and, presenter and expenses (1.49). CONCLUSION: This study sheds light on the CPD requirements and aspirations of radiographers in the UAE, offering insights into their preferences and challenges. These findings can inform strategies for improving CPD opportunities and ensuring that radiographers are equipped to meet the evolving healthcare demands in the UAE, including performing enhanced practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Development of flexible and comprehensive CPD programmes tailored to radiographers' career interests is required. Employers should provide financial support and flexibility in training options. Regulatory bodies should continue to mandate CPD, fostering a culture of lifelong learning. Supportive work environments, interdisciplinary collaboration, and technological fluency are crucial. Emphasising patient-centred care, research opportunities, and continuous assessment further enhances radiography practice.

Expansion of Typical Values for Paediatric Patients in Ireland and Comparison with Published DRLs - Experiences of a Single Institution.

INTRODUCTION: To reduce the risks involved with ionising radiation exposure, typical values (TVs) and diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) have been established to help keep radiation doses 'as low as reasonably practicable. TVs/DRLs provide standardised radiation dose metrics that can be used for comparative purposes. However, for paediatrics, such values should consider the size of the child instead of their age. This study aimed to establish and compare paediatric TVs for chest, abdomen and pelvis radiography. METHODS: Study methods followed processes for establishing paediatric DRLs as outlined by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA). Kerma-area product (KAP) values, excluding rejected images, were retrospectively acquired from the study institution's Picture Archiving and Communications System (PACS). Paediatric patients were categorised into the following weight-based groupings (5 to <15 kg, 15 to <30 kg, 30 to <50 kg, 50 to 80 kg) and stratified based on the examination that was performed (chest, abdomen, and pelvis), and where it was performed (the different X-ray rooms). Anonymised data were inputted into Microsoft Excel for analysis. Median and 3rd quartile KAP values were reported together with graphical illustrations. RESULTS: Data from 407 X-ray examinations were analysed. For the previously identified weight categories (5 to <15 kg, 15 to <30 kg, 30 to <50 kg, 50 to 80 kg), TVs for the chest were 0.10, 0.19, 0.37 and 0.53 dGy.cm2, respectively. For the abdomen 0.39, 1.04, 3.51 and 4.05 dGy.cm2 and for the pelvis 0.43, 0.87, 3.50 and 7.58 dGy.cm2. Between X-ray rooms TVs varied against the institutional TVs by -60 to 119 % (chest), -50 to 103 % (abdomen) and -14 and 24 %% (pelvis). CONCLUSION: TVs in this study follow established trends with patient weight and examination type and are comparable with published literature. Variations do exist between individual examination rooms and reasons are multifactorial. Given that age and size do not perfectly correlate further work should be undertaken around weight-based TVs/DRLs in the paediatric setting.