RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The standard toxicity tools adopted for assessing Radiation Induced Skin Reactions (RISR) do not currently reflect how skin changes occur across all skin tones. A one size fits all approach is adopted currently for RISR assessment. The aim of this study was to understand what evidence-based practice and RISR tools are being used across the therapeutic radiography workforce and the levels of confidence in using these tools. METHODS: A survey using Likert scales to assess confidence in RISR assessment and management was made available to 77 departments in the UK between August-November 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to understand respondents' confidence in assessing, managing, and teaching RISR between white, brown, and black skin tones; Fisher's exact test was used to assess the significance of differences between groups. RESULTS: Complete responses were received from 406 therapeutic radiographers. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) was the most used RISR assessment tool (58% of respondents n = 237). Most respondents (74.2% n = 303) reported use of locally produced patient information on skin care, rather than the Society and College of Radiographers evidence-based patient leaflets. Confidence in assessing and managing RISR in white skin was higher than that in brown and black skin. Similarly, confidence was higher in teaching of appropriate RISR assessment and management in white skin tones when compared to brown and black skin. CONCLUSION: White skin tones appear to be more confidently assessed and managed for RISR along with taught appropriate assessment and management, than brown and black skin tones in the sample of the workforce that responded. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A greater understanding of the reasons for these differences is required but this study aims to instigate change and positive growth within this area.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, reports and experiences indicate that there has been extensive re-organisation within diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy departments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was necessary due to changes in workload and working practice guidelines that have evolved during the pandemic. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiography practice, service delivery and workforce wellbeing. METHODS: A systematic review methodology was adopted to obtain data from primary studies of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods designs from databases (PubMed, Science Direct, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], and SCOPUS: all 2020 to present). The included articles were subjected to information extraction and results-based convergent synthesis. RESULTS: The electronic database search yielded 10,420 articles after removal of duplicates. Of these, 31 articles met the final inclusion criteria with some (n = 8) fully focussed on radiotherapy workforce and service delivery. The pandemic impact on radiography practice is broadly themed around: training, communication, and information dissemination; infrastructure, technology, and clinical workflow; and workforce mental health and well-being. CONCLUSION: Globally, most radiographers received inadequate training for managing COVID-19 patients during the initial acute phase of the pandemic. Additionally, there were significant changes to clinical practice, working patterns and perceived increase in workload due to surges in COVID-19 patients and the consequent strict adherence to new infection protocols. These changes, coupled with fear emanating from the increased risk of the workforce to contracting the infection, contributed to anxiety and workplace-related stress during the pandemic. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Local pandemic response strategies must be appropriately developed from standard protocols in readiness for safe clinical practice and well-being management training of practitioners.
