Cargando…

Comparison between radiographers with sonography education working in remote Australia and radiologists’ interpretation of ultrasound examinations

INTRODUCTION: Radiographers working in remote Far North Queensland (FNQ), Australia, need to possess unique skills sets in order to provide culturally safe practice to predominantly Indigenous communities. Due to the lack of onsite radiologists in FNQ, radiographers need to provide preliminary findi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Williams, Imelda, Baird, Marilyn, Schneider, Michal
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9442297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35297211
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.576
_version_ 1784782782163058688
author Williams, Imelda
Baird, Marilyn
Schneider, Michal
author_facet Williams, Imelda
Baird, Marilyn
Schneider, Michal
author_sort Williams, Imelda
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Radiographers working in remote Far North Queensland (FNQ), Australia, need to possess unique skills sets in order to provide culturally safe practice to predominantly Indigenous communities. Due to the lack of onsite radiologists in FNQ, radiographers need to provide preliminary findings to referring practitioners including sonographic findings. The accuracy of such findings has not been evaluated to date. The objective of this study was to compare the level of agreement and recommendations for further investigations of FNQ radiographers to teleradiologists’ reports. As radiographic findings are not recorded or stored as part of routine practice, only sonographic findings were included in the study. METHODS: Consecutive de‐identified ultrasound cases were extracted between January and March 2019 inclusively by an independent investigator. The researcher scored the ultrasound cases between 1 and 4 according to levels of agreement between sonographic findings and teleradiologists’ reports, and recommendations between radiographers and teleradiologists were also compared using frequency analysis. RESULTS: Five‐hundred and thirty‐two ultrasound cases were included for this study. Of those, 517 (97.2%) were in complete agreement and 15 (2.8%) reported minor discrepancies. There were no moderate or major discrepancies suggesting an overall accuracy rate of 100% as the radiographer/sonographer findings were in close agreement with the teleradiologists’ reports. There was complete agreement regarding further clinical recommendations in 453 (85%) cases. The discrepancy in the remaining 15% of cases did not lead to any adverse or changed patient management. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports existing evidence about the accuracy and timely communication of sonographic findings to radiologists and other health care professionals, in keeping with the Medical Radiation Practice Board of Australia expectations. It is likely that radiographer comments on plain radiographic images are equally as reliable, but this remains to be explored.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9442297
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94422972022-09-09 Comparison between radiographers with sonography education working in remote Australia and radiologists’ interpretation of ultrasound examinations Williams, Imelda Baird, Marilyn Schneider, Michal J Med Radiat Sci Original Articles INTRODUCTION: Radiographers working in remote Far North Queensland (FNQ), Australia, need to possess unique skills sets in order to provide culturally safe practice to predominantly Indigenous communities. Due to the lack of onsite radiologists in FNQ, radiographers need to provide preliminary findings to referring practitioners including sonographic findings. The accuracy of such findings has not been evaluated to date. The objective of this study was to compare the level of agreement and recommendations for further investigations of FNQ radiographers to teleradiologists’ reports. As radiographic findings are not recorded or stored as part of routine practice, only sonographic findings were included in the study. METHODS: Consecutive de‐identified ultrasound cases were extracted between January and March 2019 inclusively by an independent investigator. The researcher scored the ultrasound cases between 1 and 4 according to levels of agreement between sonographic findings and teleradiologists’ reports, and recommendations between radiographers and teleradiologists were also compared using frequency analysis. RESULTS: Five‐hundred and thirty‐two ultrasound cases were included for this study. Of those, 517 (97.2%) were in complete agreement and 15 (2.8%) reported minor discrepancies. There were no moderate or major discrepancies suggesting an overall accuracy rate of 100% as the radiographer/sonographer findings were in close agreement with the teleradiologists’ reports. There was complete agreement regarding further clinical recommendations in 453 (85%) cases. The discrepancy in the remaining 15% of cases did not lead to any adverse or changed patient management. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports existing evidence about the accuracy and timely communication of sonographic findings to radiologists and other health care professionals, in keeping with the Medical Radiation Practice Board of Australia expectations. It is likely that radiographer comments on plain radiographic images are equally as reliable, but this remains to be explored. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-03-16 2022-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9442297/ /pubmed/35297211 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.576 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Williams, Imelda
Baird, Marilyn
Schneider, Michal
Comparison between radiographers with sonography education working in remote Australia and radiologists’ interpretation of ultrasound examinations
title Comparison between radiographers with sonography education working in remote Australia and radiologists’ interpretation of ultrasound examinations
title_full Comparison between radiographers with sonography education working in remote Australia and radiologists’ interpretation of ultrasound examinations
title_fullStr Comparison between radiographers with sonography education working in remote Australia and radiologists’ interpretation of ultrasound examinations
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between radiographers with sonography education working in remote Australia and radiologists’ interpretation of ultrasound examinations
title_short Comparison between radiographers with sonography education working in remote Australia and radiologists’ interpretation of ultrasound examinations
title_sort comparison between radiographers with sonography education working in remote australia and radiologists’ interpretation of ultrasound examinations
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9442297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35297211
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.576
work_keys_str_mv AT williamsimelda comparisonbetweenradiographerswithsonographyeducationworkinginremoteaustraliaandradiologistsinterpretationofultrasoundexaminations
AT bairdmarilyn comparisonbetweenradiographerswithsonographyeducationworkinginremoteaustraliaandradiologistsinterpretationofultrasoundexaminations
AT schneidermichal comparisonbetweenradiographerswithsonographyeducationworkinginremoteaustraliaandradiologistsinterpretationofultrasoundexaminations