Relationship Between Professional Behaviors and Radiologic Technologists' Demographics.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the professional behaviors of radiologic technologists differ based on demographic variables. METHODS: An invitation was sent to 10 000 radiologic technologists to participate in the study. Participants completed the Haynes Scale of Professionalism for Radiologic Technology and answered demographic questions. Kruskal-Wallis tests and analyses of variance were conducted to identify the relationship between demographic variables and professional behaviors. Post hoc analyses were performed to identify differences between groups. RESULTS: A significant difference was identified for the demographic variable of age and the professionalism subscale of quality patient care (P < .001). The demographic variable of years as a technologist had significant differences with the subscales of quality patient care (P = .007), ethical performance (P = .008), personal and professional development (P = .02), and the total professionalism score (P = .01). A significant difference was found for the highest degree and the subscale of quality patient care (P = .007). DISCUSSION: The demographic variables of age, years as a technologist, and highest degree affected the technologist's professional behavior scores. Technologists who were older or had more years of experience had higher professional behavior scores. CONCLUSION: Certain demographic variables can affect the professional behavior of technologists. These results help to highlight the factors that influence the development of professional behaviors.

Predictive Validity of the HESI Radiography Exit Exam and Best Practices for ARRT Certification Exam Success.

PURPOSE: To determine the predictive validity of Health Education Systems Incorporated (HESI) Exit Exam scores for student first-time success on the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) certification exam and to analyze whether schools' policies on the HESI Exit Exam are associated with end-of-program student success. METHODS: Twenty-five radiography program directors provided retrospective data on ARRT certification exam student outcomes, and 24 program directors completed the HESI Exit Exam program policy survey. Data analysis was performed to examine the correlation between students' HESI Exit Exam scores and their first-time ARRT certification exam outcomes and to investigate the relationship between program policies and performance on both exams. RESULTS: First-time ARRT certification exam outcomes were obtained for 1265 program graduates who took the HESI Exit Exam from 2018 through 2021. Students achieving acceptable (700-749) and recommended (750-799) HESI Exit Exam scores exhibited significantly higher certification exam pass rates of 79.4% and 86.4%, respectively. ARRT certification exam pass rates were higher for those scoring 800 or above (94.5-100%). Implementation of a minimum HESI Exit Exam score requirements and a required exam preparation were significantly associated with more favorable ARRT certification exam outcomes. DISCUSSION: There was a significant positive relationship between higher HESI Exit Exam scores and more successful outcomes on the ARRT certification exam. Two program policies regarding use of the HESI Exit Exam (minimum exit exam score required, required test prep) emerged as best-practice approaches for ARRT certification exam success. CONCLUSION: The HESI Exit Exam was predictive of success on the ARRT certification exam. The results presented in this study can be used to improve radiography education. Future research on how additional educational resources affect HESI Exit Exam and ARRT certification exam success is warranted.

Scan With Me: A Train-the-Trainer Program to Upskill MRI Personnel in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

PURPOSE: Access to MRI in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains among the poorest in the world. The lack of skilled MRI personnel exacerbates access gaps, reinforcing long-standing health disparities. The Scan With Me (SWiM) program aims to sustainably create a network of highly skilled MRI technologists in LMICs who will facilitate the transfer of MRI knowledge and skills to their peers and contribute to the implementation of highly valuable imaging protocols for effective clinical and research use. METHODS: The program introduces a case-based curriculum designed using a novel train-the-trainer approach, integrated with peer-collaborative learning to upskill practicing MRI technologists in LMICs. The 6-week curriculum uses the teach-try-use approach, which combines self-paced didactic lectures covering the basics of MR image acquisition (teach) with hands-on expert-guided scanning experience (try) and the implementation of protocols tailored to provide the best possible images on their infrastructures (use). Each program includes research translation skills training using an established advanced MRI technique relevant to LMICs. A pilot program focused on cardiac MRI (CMR) was conducted to assess the program's curriculum, delivery, and evaluation methods. RESULTS: Forty-three MRI technologists from 16 LMICs participated in the pilot CMR program and, over the course of the training, implemented optimized CMR protocols that reduced acquisition times while improving image quality. The training resources and scanner-specific standardized protocols are published openly for public use in an online repository. In general, at the end of the program, learners reported considerable improvements in CMR knowledge and skills. All respondents to the program evaluation survey agreed to recommend the program to their colleagues, while 87% indicated interest in returning to help train others. CONCLUSIONS: The SWiM program is the first master class in MRI acquisition for practicing imaging technologists in LMICs. The program holds the potential to help reduce disparities in MRI expertise and access. The support of the MRI community, imaging societies, and funding agencies will increase its reach and further its impact in democratizing MRI.

Student Observations Reveal Gaps Between Chest Imaging Theory and Practice.

PURPOSE: To assess whether first-year radiography students observed differences between what they were taught in didactic and laboratory courses and how technologists perform chest imaging procedures during clinical experiences. METHODS: This study used a mixed-methods approach with a cross-sectional survey, consisting of 11 quantitative and 11 qualitative items, during the fall 2020 semester. The survey asked participants to evaluate survey statements based on their observations of radiographers' behaviors during chest imaging procedures in relation to the 11 American Registry of Radiologic Technologist clinical competency areas. Participants rated their evaluations based on the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with statements regarding radiographers' behaviors using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). For each statement, a follow-up, open-ended question asked participants to provide reasons why they thought technologists did or did not exhibit certain behaviors. Data were analyzed quantitatively with differential statistics and qualitatively by thematically categorizing open-ended responses. RESULTS: A total of 19 first-year radiography students (N = 19) completed the survey. Most participants somewhat agreed or strongly agreed with 8 out of the 11 competency statements based on their observations of technologists when performing chest imaging procedures: room preparation (73.7%), patient identity verification (89.5%), examination order verification (79%), patient assessment (79%), equipment operation (52.6%), patient management (100%), technique selection (73.6%), and image evaluation (94.7%). Most participants somewhat disagreed, strongly disagreed, or were neutral with 3 out of the 11 categories: patient positioning, radiation safety, and image processing. Qualitatively, participants responded that technologists only provided lead shielding for pediatric patients, were not instructing patients to take 2 inspirations before making an exposure, and were cropping their images electronically before submitting them for diagnoses. DISCUSSION: Participants reported inconsistencies between what they were taught and what they saw technologists doing during chest imaging procedures related to patient positioning, radiation safety, and imaging processing. Participants' responses stated that these inconsistencies might be because of an increase in technologist responsibilities, patient volumes, and fear of not including relative anatomy on their images. CONCLUSION: Participants reported the most disagreement with radiation safety during chest imaging procedures. Although lead shielding for abdominal and pelvic procedures is no longer recommended, shielding patients during chest imaging procedures is still recommended. Radiography programs can educate students that inconsistency between task order does not mean there is a gap between theory and practice.