Reporting radiographer peer review systems: A cross-sectional survey of London NHS Trusts.

INTRODUCTION: Peer review is frequently incorporated within radiographer reporting services. The aim of this study is to establish peer review systems used for radiograph reports provided by reporting radiographers in London. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey of NHS diagnostic imaging departments was performed. Reporting radiographer demographics (number, frequency of reporting, scope of practice) and systems used to provide peer review of radiograph reports (review frequency, case selection, volume, outcome measure, practitioner performing the review) were collected. RESULTS: Thirteen eligible responses were received (61.9% response rate). Variability was found between Trusts in the number of reporting radiographers, frequency of reporting sessions and scope of practice. Most Trusts (9 of 13, 69.2%) have active peer review systems for radiographer reporting. All peer review systems use random case selection, most often performed on a monthly basis. Both a fixed number or a percentage of cases reported were used, with true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative the most frequent outcome measure. Of the 12 Trusts that have or are planning a peer system, all currently or plan to use reporting radiographers to conduct the review, with five (41.2%) also using consultant radiologists. CONCLUSION: Peer review of radiographer reporting is common in London NHS Trusts although there is variation in the methods used. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Radiographer reports frequently undergo peer review. Standardisation of reporting radiographer peer review systems should be considered, and a standardised systematic peer review system has been proposed.

Clinical reporting of radiographs by radiographers: Policy and practice guidance for regional imaging networks.

OBJECTIVES: Radiographer reporting is an essential component of imaging across the United Kingdom. Since the previous policy and practice guidance in 2004 the role and contribution of reporting radiographers has changed significantly. The move to imaging networks further reinforces the need for consistency in scope of practice and clinical governance for radiographer reporting. KEY FINDINGS: This guidance provides a consistent, evidence-based template for planning a reporting service, resourcing, clinical governance, preceptorship, volume and frequency of reporting, a peer learning framework and expected standards. CONCLUSION: Developed for North Central and East London, this framework and standards will help reduce unwarranted variation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Consistency in practice could help maximise the contribution of radiographer reporting.