Published June 2014 | Version v1
Journal article Metadata-only

A survey of radiographers' confidence and self-perceived accuracy in frontline image interpretation and their continuing educational preferences

Creators

  • 1. School of Public Health and Social Work and Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland (Australia)
  • 2. Centre for Functioning and Health Research, Metro South Health, Brisbane, Queensland (Australia)
  • 3. Department of Medical Imaging, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland (Australia)
  • 4. Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland (Australia)
  • 5. Radiation Oncology Mater Centre, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland (Australia)

Description

The provision of a written comment on traumatic abnormalities of the musculoskeletal system detected by radiographers can assist referrers and may improve patient management, but the practice has not been widely adopted outside the United Kingdom. The purpose of this study was to investigate Australian radiographers' perceptions of their readiness for practice in a radiographer commenting system and their educational preferences in relation to two different delivery formats of image interpretation education, intensive and non-intensive. A cross-sectional web-based questionnaire was implemented between August and September 2012. Participants included radiographers with experience working in emergency settings at four Australian metropolitan hospitals. Conventional descriptive statistics, frequency histograms, and thematic analysis were undertaken. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test examined whether a difference in preference ratings between intensive and non-intensive education delivery was evident. The questionnaire was completed by 73 radiographers (68% response rate). Radiographers reported higher confidence and self-perceived accuracy to detect traumatic abnormalities than to describe traumatic abnormalities of the musculoskeletal system. Radiographers frequently reported high desirability ratings for both the intensive and the non-intensive education delivery, no difference in desirability ratings for these two formats was evident (z = 1.66, P = 0.11). Some Australian radiographers perceive they are not ready to practise in a frontline radiographer commenting system. Overall, radiographers indicated mixed preferences for image interpretation education delivered via intensive and non-intensive formats. Further research, preferably randomised trials, investigating the effectiveness of intensive and non-intensive education formats of image interpretation education for radiographers is warranted

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.48; Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4175834

Additional details

Identifiers

URL
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4175834;
DOI
10.1002/jmrs.48;

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences (Print)
Journal Volume
61
Journal Issue
2
Journal Page Range
p. 69-77
ISSN
2051-3895

INIS

Country of Publication
Australia
Country of Input or Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
INIS RN
46108102
Subject category
S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
Descriptors DEI
ACCIDENTS; ACCURACY; DELIVERY; EDUCATION; HOSPITALS; IMAGES; PATIENTS; RADIOLOGICAL PERSONNEL; STATISTICS; UNITED KINGDOM
Descriptors DEC
BUILDINGS; DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; EUROPE; MATHEMATICS; MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS; MEDICAL PERSONNEL; PERSONNEL; WESTERN EUROPE

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2014 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd on behalf of Australian Institute of Radiography and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology.
Notes
PMCID: PMC4175834; PMID: 26229640; OAI: oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:4175834