Online training resources to aid therapeutic radiographers in engaging in conversations about physical activity and diet: A mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: This study explored changes in therapeutic radiographers' (TRs) self-reported knowledge and skills to engage in conversations about physical activity and diet with people living with and beyond cancer following completion of publicly available online courses. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to two of five online courses that aim to support health professionals to engage in conversations about physical activity and diet in the oncology setting. Participants rated their agreement with 18 statements related to the COM-B (capability, opportunity and motivation-behaviour) model components following completion of an online course on healthy diet (n = 16) and physical activity (n = 21). Semi-structured telephone interviews (n = 21) were also conducted. Analysis of the interviews was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: Overall, the online courses were acceptable and the TRs in this study self-reported improved COM to deliver advice on physical activity and diet. The inclusion of the evidence and scientific rationale on the benefits of diet and physical activity, and also guidance on how to start conversations with patients were highlighted as important features of the courses. Suggestions for adaptations to the nutrition courses included the need for content that accounts for the side effects cancer patients experience while undergoing treatment. To support the implementation of training and the delivery of advice on these topics, multi-disciplinary working, organisational support and guidance around professional role boundaries were highlighted as important. CONCLUSION: Current publicly available online courses on physical activity and diet for oncology health professionals can reduce some barriers among TRs to providing advice to those living with and beyond cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Existing online training courses could be used to support TRs to deliver physical activity and dietary advice in practice. Findings show that these courses can be disseminated within radiotherapy departments. The results also highlight a number of important considerations for the implementation of brief health behaviour advice and online training interventions on physical activity and diet within cancer care.

Artificial Intelligence: Guidance for clinical imaging and therapeutic radiography professionals, a summary by the Society of Radiographers AI working group.

INTRODUCTION: Artificial intelligence (AI) has started to be increasingly adopted in medical imaging and radiotherapy clinical practice, however research, education and partnerships have not really caught up yet to facilitate a safe and effective transition. The aim of the document is to provide baseline guidance for radiographers working in the field of AI in education, research, clinical practice and stakeholder partnerships. The guideline is intended for use by the multi-professional clinical imaging and radiotherapy teams, including all staff, volunteers, students and learners. METHODS: The format mirrored similar publications from other SCoR working groups in the past. The recommendations have been subject to a rapid period of peer, professional and patient assessment and review. Feedback was sought from a range of SoR members and advisory groups, as well as from the SoR director of professional policy, as well as from external experts. Amendments were then made in line with feedback received and a final consensus was reached. RESULTS: AI is an innovative tool radiographers will need to engage with to ensure a safe and efficient clinical service in imaging and radiotherapy. Educational provisions will need to be proportionately adjusted by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to offer the necessary knowledge, skills and competences for diagnostic and therapeutic radiographers, to enable them to navigate a future where AI will be central to patient diagnosis and treatment pathways. Radiography-led research in AI should address key clinical challenges and enable radiographers co-design, implement and validate AI solutions. Partnerships are key in ensuring the contribution of radiographers is integrated into healthcare AI ecosystems for the benefit of the patients and service users. CONCLUSION: Radiography is starting to work towards a future with AI-enabled healthcare. This guidance offers some recommendations for different areas of radiography practice. There is a need to update our educational curricula, rethink our research priorities, forge new strong clinical-academic-industry partnerships to optimise clinical practice. Specific recommendations in relation to clinical practice, education, research and the forging of partnerships with key stakeholders are discussed, with potential impact on policy and practice in all these domains. These recommendations aim to serve as baseline guidance for UK radiographers. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This review offers the most up-to-date recommendations for clinical practitioners, researchers, academics and service users of clinical imaging and therapeutic radiography services. Radiography practice, education and research must gradually adjust to AI-enabled healthcare systems to ensure gains of AI technologies are maximised and challenges and risks are minimised. This guidance will need to be updated regularly given the fast-changing pace of AI development and innovation.

Digital mammographic interpretation by UK radiographer mammographers: A JAFROC analysis of observer performance.

INTRODUCTION: Radiologists utilise mammography test sets to bench mark their performance against recognised standards. Using a validated test set, this study compares the performance of radiographer readers against previous test results for radiologists. METHODS: Under similar test conditions radiographer readers were given an established test set of 60 mammograms and tasked to identify breast cancer, they were measured against their ability to identify, locate and give a confidence level for cancer being present on a standard set of mammographic images. The results were then compared to previously published results for radiologists for similar or the same test sets. RESULTS: The 10 radiographer readers demonstrated similar results to radiologists and for lesion sensitivity were the highest scoring group. The study group score a sensitivity of 83; a specificity of 69.3 and lesion sensitivity of 74.8 with ROC and JAFROC scores of 0.86 and 0.74 respectively. CONCLUSION: Under test conditions radiographers are able to identify and accurately locate breast cancer in a range of complex mammographic backgrounds. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The study was performed under experimental conditions with results comparable to breast radiologists under similar conditions, translation of these findings into clinical practice will help address access and capacity issues in the timely identification and diagnosis of breast cancer.

COVID-19 in the radiology department: What radiographers need to know.

OBJECTIVES: The aim is to review current literature related to the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of suspected and confirmed Covid-19 cases. KEY FINDINGS: Medical Imaging plays an important auxiliary role in the diagnosis of Covid-19 patients, mainly those most seriously affected. Practice differs widely among different countries, mainly due to the variability of access to resources (viral testing and imaging equipment, specialised staff, protective equipment). It has been now well-documented that chest radiographs should be the first-line imaging tool and chest CT should only be reserved for critically ill patients, or when chest radiograph and clinical presentation may be inconclusive. CONCLUSION: As radiographers work on the frontline, they should be aware of the potential risks associated with Covid-19 and engage in optimal strategies to reduce these. Their role in vetting, conducting and often reporting the imaging examinations is vital, as well as their contribution in patient safety and care. Medical Imaging should be limited to critically ill patients, and where it may have an impact on the patient management plan. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: At the time of publication, this review offers the most up-to-date recommendations for clinical practitioners in radiology departments, including radiographers. Radiography practice has to significantly adjust to these new requirements to support optimal and safe imaging practices for the diagnosis of Covid-19. The adoption of low dose CT, rigorous infection control protocols and optimal use of personal protective equipment may reduce the potential risks of radiation exposure and infection, respectively, within Radiology departments.

Radiographer reporting of neurological magnetic resonance imaging examinations of the head and cervical spine: Findings of an accredited postgraduate programme.

INTRODUCTION: To analyse the objective structured examination (OSE) results of the first cohorts of radiographers (n = 13) who successfully completed an accredited postgraduate programme in clinical reporting of neurological magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations of the head and cervical spine. METHODS: Forty MRI examinations were used in the OSE which included a range of abnormal cases (prevalence of abnormal examinations approximated 50%) and included: haemorrhage, infarction, demyelination disease, abscess, mass lesions (metastatic deposits, meningioma, glioma, astrocytoma); and disc disease, cord compression, stenosis, ligament rupture, syringomyelia appearances on patients referred from a range of referral sources. Normal variants and incidental findings were also included. True/false positive and negative fractions were used to mark the responses which were also scored for agreement with the previously agreed expected answers based on agreement between three consultant radiologists' reports. RESULTS: The mean sensitivity, specificity and agreement rates for all head and cervical spine investigations (n = 520) combined were 98.86%, 98.08% and 88.37%, respectively. The highest scoring cases were cases which included astrocytoma, disc protrusion with cord compression and glioma. The most common errors were related to syringomyelia, ligament rupture and vertebral fracture. CONCLUSIONS: These OSE results suggest that in an academic setting, and following an accredited postgraduate education programme, this group of radiographers has the ability to correctly identify normal MRI examinations of the head/cervical spine and are able to provide a report on the abnormal appearances to a high standard. Further work is required to confirm the clinical application of these findings.

Is a nurse consultant impact toolkit relevant and transferrable to the radiography profession? An evaluation project.

INTRODUCTION: 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.

Immediate reporting of chest X-rays referred from general practice by reporting radiographers: a single centre feasibility study.

AIM: To investigate the feasibility of radiographer-led immediate reporting of chest radiographs (CXRs) referred from general practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 4-month feasibility study (November 2016 to March 2017) was carried out in a single radiology department at an acute general hospital. Comparison was made between CXRs that received an immediate and routine report to determine the number of lung cancers diagnosed, time to diagnosis of lung cancer, time to computed tomography (CT), and number of urgent referrals to respiratory medicine. RESULTS: Forty of 186 sessions (22%) were covered by radiographer immediate reporting. Of the 1,687 CXRs referred from general practice, 558 (33.1%) received an immediate report (radiographer or radiologist). Twenty-two (of 36) CT examinations performed were following an abnormal CXR with an immediate report (mean 0.8 scans/week). Time from CXR to CT was shorter in the immediate report group (n=22 mean 0.9 days SD=2.3) compared to routine reporting (n=14; mean 6.5 SD=3.2; F=27.883, p<0.0001). Time to multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion was shorter in the immediate reporting group (mean 4.1 SD=2.9) compared to routine reporting (mean 10.6; SD=4.5; F=11.59, p<0.0001). No apparent difference was found for time to discussion at treatment MDT. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to introduce a radiographer-led immediate CXR reporting service. Patients can be taken off the lung cancer pathway sooner with the introduction of radiographer immediate reporting of CXRs and this may improve outcomes for patients. A definitive study assessing outcomes is required to determine whether this will have an impact mortality and morbidity for patients.

Expanding the role of radiographers in reporting suspected lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree model.

INTRODUCTION: To assess whether an enhanced role for radiographers in reporting lung cancer chest radiographs is cost-effective. METHODS: Costs and outcomes of chest radiograph reporting by reporting radiographer or by a radiologist were compared using a decision tree model. The model followed patients from an initial chest radiographs for suspected lung cancer to the provision of cancer care in positive cases. Sensitivity and specificity of reporting for radiographers and radiologists were derived from a recent trial. Treatment costs and quality adjusted life expectancy were estimated over five years for those diagnosed. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of inference to parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: For 1000 simulated patients, radiographer reporting decreased detection costs by £8500 and detected 10.3 more cases at initial presentation. After including treatment costs and outcomes, radiographer reporting remained cheaper than radiologist reporting and resulted in 1.4 additional QALYs per 1000 screened patients. Probabilistic analysis indicated a 98% likelihood that radiographer reporting is cheaper and more effective than radiologist reporting after inclusion of treatment costs and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Radiographer reporting is a cost-effective alternative to radiologist reporting in lung cancer diagnosis. Further work is needed to support the adoption of radiographer's reporting pathway in diagnosis of lung cancer suspected patients.