Cargando…

Radiographers’ actions and challenges when confronted with inappropriate radiology referrals

OBJECTIVES: To explore radiographers’ actions toward inappropriate referrals and hindrances to assessing referrals. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to radiographers via the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT) networks. The questionnaire consisted o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chilanga, Catherine Chilute, Olerud, Hilde Merete, Lysdahl, Kristin Bakke
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8732969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34989841
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08470-z
_version_ 1784627715947626496
author Chilanga, Catherine Chilute
Olerud, Hilde Merete
Lysdahl, Kristin Bakke
author_facet Chilanga, Catherine Chilute
Olerud, Hilde Merete
Lysdahl, Kristin Bakke
author_sort Chilanga, Catherine Chilute
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To explore radiographers’ actions toward inappropriate referrals and hindrances to assessing referrals. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to radiographers via the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT) networks. The questionnaire consisted of 5-point Likert scale questions on radiographers’ actions to supplement referral information, actions for unjustified referrals and hindrances to referral assessment. The questionnaire was validated using a test–retest reliability analysis. Kappa values ≥ 0.6 were accepted. SPSS software was used for data analysis and chi-square tests to compare subgroups. RESULTS: Total responses received were 279. The most reported actions to supplement missing referral information were to ask the patient or relative, examine the body region of concern and check medical records (73%, 70%, 67%, responded often/always, respectively). The actions when confronted with unjustified referrals were reported equally to consult the radiologist, referring clinician and radiographer (69–68% often/always responses). The hindering factors ranked high (agreed/strongly agreed responses) pertained to inadequate information in referral forms (83%), ineffective communication among healthcare professionals (79%), lack of training (70%) and allocated time (61%). Statistically significant associations were observed for a few actions and hindrances with education level, modality of practice and responsibility to screen imaging referrals. CONCLUSION: Radiographers consult colleagues about suspected unjustified referrals. Effective communication pathways, training and time allocation to improve radiographers’ skills to assess referrals may enhance appropriate imaging and delivery of quality patient care. KEY POINTS: • Radiographers’ actions of supplementing missing information in radiology referrals facilitate provision of high-quality health services. • Radiographers’ strategy when confronted with inappropriate referrals is to consult radiologists and referring clinicians. • Better inter-professional communication and organisation of tasks can facilitate radiographers’ participation in referral assessment to ensure appropriate imaging. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-08470-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8732969
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87329692022-01-06 Radiographers’ actions and challenges when confronted with inappropriate radiology referrals Chilanga, Catherine Chilute Olerud, Hilde Merete Lysdahl, Kristin Bakke Eur Radiol Radiological Education OBJECTIVES: To explore radiographers’ actions toward inappropriate referrals and hindrances to assessing referrals. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to radiographers via the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT) networks. The questionnaire consisted of 5-point Likert scale questions on radiographers’ actions to supplement referral information, actions for unjustified referrals and hindrances to referral assessment. The questionnaire was validated using a test–retest reliability analysis. Kappa values ≥ 0.6 were accepted. SPSS software was used for data analysis and chi-square tests to compare subgroups. RESULTS: Total responses received were 279. The most reported actions to supplement missing referral information were to ask the patient or relative, examine the body region of concern and check medical records (73%, 70%, 67%, responded often/always, respectively). The actions when confronted with unjustified referrals were reported equally to consult the radiologist, referring clinician and radiographer (69–68% often/always responses). The hindering factors ranked high (agreed/strongly agreed responses) pertained to inadequate information in referral forms (83%), ineffective communication among healthcare professionals (79%), lack of training (70%) and allocated time (61%). Statistically significant associations were observed for a few actions and hindrances with education level, modality of practice and responsibility to screen imaging referrals. CONCLUSION: Radiographers consult colleagues about suspected unjustified referrals. Effective communication pathways, training and time allocation to improve radiographers’ skills to assess referrals may enhance appropriate imaging and delivery of quality patient care. KEY POINTS: • Radiographers’ actions of supplementing missing information in radiology referrals facilitate provision of high-quality health services. • Radiographers’ strategy when confronted with inappropriate referrals is to consult radiologists and referring clinicians. • Better inter-professional communication and organisation of tasks can facilitate radiographers’ participation in referral assessment to ensure appropriate imaging. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-08470-z. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-01-06 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8732969/ /pubmed/34989841 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08470-z Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology 2022 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Radiological Education
Chilanga, Catherine Chilute
Olerud, Hilde Merete
Lysdahl, Kristin Bakke
Radiographers’ actions and challenges when confronted with inappropriate radiology referrals
title Radiographers’ actions and challenges when confronted with inappropriate radiology referrals
title_full Radiographers’ actions and challenges when confronted with inappropriate radiology referrals
title_fullStr Radiographers’ actions and challenges when confronted with inappropriate radiology referrals
title_full_unstemmed Radiographers’ actions and challenges when confronted with inappropriate radiology referrals
title_short Radiographers’ actions and challenges when confronted with inappropriate radiology referrals
title_sort radiographers’ actions and challenges when confronted with inappropriate radiology referrals
topic Radiological Education
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8732969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34989841
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08470-z
work_keys_str_mv AT chilangacatherinechilute radiographersactionsandchallengeswhenconfrontedwithinappropriateradiologyreferrals
AT olerudhildemerete radiographersactionsandchallengeswhenconfrontedwithinappropriateradiologyreferrals
AT lysdahlkristinbakke radiographersactionsandchallengeswhenconfrontedwithinappropriateradiologyreferrals