A survey investigating postero-anterior chest X-ray clinical technique amongst radiographers and assistant practitioners in the UK: An extended pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Whilst many technical factors for the postero-anterior (PA) chest projection are well-researched and standardised, anecdotal evidence suggests a discrepancy regarding positioning of the X-ray tube; some radiographers using a horizontal tube, and others apply an angle. Currently there is a lack of published evidence supporting the benefits of either technique. METHODS: Following University ethical approval, an invitation e-mail containing a link to a short questionnaire and participant information sheet was sent to radiographers and assistant practitioners in Liverpool and the surrounding areas, via professional networks/research team contacts. Questions related to length of experience, highest qualification and reasoned choice of horizontal versus angled tube preference in Computed Radiography (CR) and Digital Radiography (DR) rooms. The survey was open for nine weeks, with reminders at five and eight weeks. RESULTS: There were 63 respondents. Both techniques were commonplace, with a non-statistically significant preference (p = 0.439) for a horizontal tube in both DR rooms (59%, n = 37) and CR rooms (52%, n = 30). Angled technique was employed by 41% (n = 26) of participants in DR rooms and 48% (n = 28) in CR rooms. Many participants indicated 'taught', or 'protocol', influenced their approach (46% [n = 29] in DR, 38% [n = 22] in CR). 35% (n = 10) of participants using caudal angulation, identified dose optimisation as the rationale in both CR and DR rooms. Most specifically noted reduced dose to the thyroid (69% [n = 11] in CR, 73% [n = 11] in DR). CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of variation in practice regarding horizontal versus an angled X-ray tube but no consistent rationale for either choice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There is a need to standardise tube positioning in PA chest radiography in line with future empirical research into the dose-optimisation implications of tube angulation.

Gonad shield placement accuracy in pelvic radiographs for male patients: A prospective phantom study and survey of third year undergraduate diagnostic radiography students".

INTRODUCTION: Little research has focused on the accuracy of gonad shield placement, especially by students. While studies have investigated the presence of gonad shields they do not aim to measure accuracy but only look at repeatability. This study aimed to establish students' knowledge of gonad shields and their accuracy in placing it. METHODS: Following an invitation email and informed consent, students completed a 7-question questionnaire and placed a gonad shield on a Pixi full body adult phantom (male configuration). The phantom was x-rayed and images were assessed for gonad shield positioning in terms of obscuring bony anatomy, correct orientation and distance from a "gold standard" position. RESULTS: 36% of images displayed shields covering bony anatomy while 16% of shields were incorrectly orientated. All shields incorrectly orientated also covered bony anatomy. Statistical significance was seen between incorrect shield orientation and the obscuring of bony anatomy (p = 0.01). Dispersion of positioning error measurements ranged from -6.80 mm (better placed than the "gold standard") to 62.35 mm inferiorly, with an average 28.22 mm inferiorly. CONCLUSION: The average misplacement of 28.22 mm suggests participants placed the gonad shielding lower than necessary to avoid obscuring bony anatomy. The 36% of misplaced shields, while lower than in previous studies, is still a significant number of radiographs that would require repeats. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Given the associated difficulties surrounding gonad shields and their placement, this study supports previous research suggesting that the benefit of using gonad shielding is questionable.

A study to investigate undergraduate diagnostic radiographer preferences and expectations of clinical role development: Quantitative findings.

INTRODUCTION: Whilst United Kingdom (UK) student ambitions for role development have been surveyed previously, no literature has explored their specialisation preferences. This study aimed to explore these ambitions and preferences in final year diagnostic radiography undergraduates at a Higher-Education Institute (HEI) in the North-West of England. METHODS: University ethical approval was granted for a survey-based study. A questionnaire consisting of 4 closed questions and 6 open questions was distributed in paper format after a taught session. Responses were collated and summarised in Excel (descriptive statistics), and transferred into SPSS (inferential statistics). RESULTS: The response rate was 75.6% (n = 34/45). Respondents were predominantly female (73.5%), had A-level as their highest qualification (79.4%) and were of 'school-leaver' age (76.5%) at the start of the degree. By overall total, preferences were for reporting (n = 24/101; 23.8%), computed tomography (CT) (n = 20/101; 19.8%) and MRI/ultrasound (both 12/101; 12.5%). CT had more first choices (n = 8) than reporting (n = 7). 73.5% anticipated specialising in less than 2 years, and 100% within 4 years. CONCLUSION: Other than a larger percentage having A-level as their highest qualification, the participant demographics were similar to the UK radiography workforce. Reporting, CT, MRI and ultrasound are the specialisation preferences of final year undergraduate diagnostic radiography students. Expectations for the timeline of role development were slightly more ambitious than previously found. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Identification of reporting as the preferred area of specialisation is a novel finding in the context of UK HEIs. Harnessing this ambition will help meet the goals of successive government policy. Ensuring the ambitions of graduate diagnostic radiographers can be satisfied has clear implications for staff retention within the NHS.

The impact of gonad shielding in anteroposterior (AP) pelvis projections in an adult: A phantom study utilising digital radiography (DR).

INTRODUCTION: Positioning relative to the lateral automatic exposure control (AEC) chambers (cranial/caudal orientation) optimises dose and image quality in pelvic radiography. In the cranial orientation introducing gonad shielding (GS) in females may increase radiation dose. The aim of this study was to fully optimise the combination of pelvis orientation and use of GS in both male and females. METHODS: An anthropomorphic pelvis phantom was exposed, with dose area product (DAP) recorded, in both orientations without GS and four conditions with GS: cranial orientation (female/male), caudal orientation (female/male). A 4 cm × 4 cm grid incorporating thirteen positions for the GS resulted in 52 experimental settings. Blind image quality assessment, utilising a modified scale, was undertaken by two experienced observers. RESULTS: Comparing no GS (caudal orientation) to female GS, no significant change in DAP was seen (3.97 v 4.03 dGy*cm2; Mann-Whitney p = 0.060). Comparing no GS (cranial orientation) to male GS no significant change in DAP was seen (8.66 v 8.77 dGy*cm2; Mann-Whitney; p = 0.210). DAP increased significantly with introduction of female GS in the cranial orientation (23%: 8.66 v 10.65 dGy*cm2, Mann-Whitney; p < 0.001) and male GS in the caudal orientation (22.8%: 3.97 v 4.87 dGy*cm2, Mann-Whitney; p < 0.001). Significantly higher repeat rates (Chi-squared test; p < 0.001) were seen for GS in female (85-100%) compared to male (30.8%). CONCLUSION: The use of gonad shielding can increase DAP and lead to repeats being required, with more required for female GS usage, suggesting the utility of GS for pelvis examinations is questionable. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Optimisation of radiation dose in pelvic radiographic examinations utilising AEC terminated exposures requires consideration of AEC chamber position and GS usage.

An evaluation of techniques used in superficial radiotherapy for non-melanoma skin cancer to replicate the planned treatment area: A prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Accuracy of superficial radiotherapy for non-melanoma skin cancer is dependent on replicating the original clinical mark-up. Responses from 18 UK Radiotherapy centres identified the four most common replication techniques; the accuracy and time-efficiency of each was evaluated, as well as participant preference and confidence. METHODS: A 2.0  cm × 2.5  cm ellipse field was drawn around the nasal ala of a surrogate patient. Templates for each replication method (1-4) were created, and skin marks removed. Twenty-five therapeutic radiographers used each method to replicate the mark-up. Measurements were recorded for lateral and longitudinal displacement, ellipse diameter and time taken. A post-study questionnaire recorded participant preference and perceived confidence. RESULTS: Comparison of the mean ellipse areas for methods 1-4 identified no statistically significant differences (ANOVA test; p = 0.579 to p = 0.999). Lateral and longitudinal displacements for method 1-4 showed a statistically significant difference between method 3 and each of methods 1, 2, 4 for lateral and longitudinal respectively (ANOVA; lateral: p = 0.008, p = 0.002, p = 0.05; longitudinal: p = 0.036, p = 0.000, and p = 0.000). Mean time taken was longest for method 3, and was compared using a Friedman test (p = 0.000) identifying a statistically significant difference. Twenty-two participants completed the questionnaire. 48% favoured method 2, 41% method 4. Method 3 was least favourite. A Likert scale (1-10) measured confidence. Participants had most confidence in methods 2 and 4. CONCLUSION: In this study, method 3 was least accurate, most time consuming, and was least favoured by users. The clinical significance of these results will depend on the margins used in local practise.

Variation in the length and structure of reports written by reporting radiographers: A retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: The literature suggests that there is variation in various features of the written radiology report for a range of body areas and imaging modalities. The retrospective study presented here aims to determine if similar variation is demonstrated in a group of 5 reporting radiographers in a UK NHS Trust. METHODS: Full reports for 1530 knee radiographic examinations performed from accident and emergency referrals were extracted for a 12-month period from a Radiology Information System (RIS) into Excel. Copied into Word, the word count function was used for each report and the number of words and characters (without spaces) was returned into Excel. Average word count and word length per report, by radiographer, were calculated for the following sections of the report: report title, main body and signature. SPSS was used to perform inferential statistical analysis. RESULTS: A wide range in the maximum and minimum average report lengths (60.88 v 17.83 words) was demonstrated. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were seen between all but one pair-wise comparison (Rad 2 v Rad 4; p = 0.98) for the overall report length; for the length of the findings section, four pair-wise comparisons did not reach significance. Average word length demonstrated less variation. 4 out of 5 radiographers always included a report title; 3 out of 5 never included a report signature. There was a strong negative correlation between experience and report length. CONCLUSION: Variation in report structure and length, as well as word length, was seen, comparable to studies of radiologist reports. Further research is required to investigate the drivers of this variation, and determine if there is any clinical significance.