General Practitioner satisfaction with a radiographer-led general radiography reporting service at a district general hospital in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate General Practitioner (GP) satisfaction with a radiographer-led general radiography reporting service in a single district general hospital in order to identify areas for improvement. METHODS: A mixed method online survey was created and distributed to all GP surgeries in the catchment area of the hospital with a 6 week response period. RESULTS: Although the majority of GPs are satisfied with the service they receive, there were areas for improvement. Key areas included methods of contacting radiology department with queries, report content/terminology and recommendations for follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of GPs are happy for radiographers to report imaging examinations some resistance was encountered, particularly with regards to chest reporting. Recommendations are made for improvements designed to address these issues. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article is one of the first in the UK to assess GP satisfaction with general X-ray reporting services. As the majority of GP reporting in the UK is now completed by radiographers, the results will allow reporting teams to tailor their service, in order to improve outcomes for both commissioners and patients.

Are reporting radiographers fulfilling the role of advanced practitioner?

BACKGROUND: Advanced practice roles are emerging in all disciplines at a rapid pace and reporting radiographers are ideally placed to work at such level. Advanced practitioners should demonstrate expert practice and show progression into three other areas of higher level practice. Most existing literature has focussed on the image interpretation aspect of the role, however there is little evidence that plain film reporting radiographers are undertaking activities beyond image interpretation and fulfilling the role of advanced practitioner. METHOD: Letters were posted to every acute NHS trust in the UK, inviting reporting radiographers to complete an online survey. Both quantitative and qualitative information was sought regarding demographics and roles supplementary to reporting. RESULTS: A total of 205 responses were analysed; 83.3% of reporting radiographers describe themselves as advanced practitioner, however significantly less are showing progression into the four core functions of higher level practice. A total of 97.0% undertake expert practice, 54.7% have a leadership role, 19.8% provide expert lectures and 71.1% have roles encompassing service development or research, though most of these fall into the service development category. 34.5% felt that they were aware of the differences between extended and advanced practice though much less (9.3%) could correctly articulate the difference. CONCLUSION: Few individuals are aware of the difference between extended and advanced practice. Though the majority of plain film reporting radiographers identify themselves as advanced practitioners, significantly less evidence all four core functions of higher level practice. The number of individuals undertaking research and providing expert-level education is low.