K. Piper

Chest X-ray Interpretation by Radiographers Is Not Inferior to Radiologists: A Multireader, Multicase Comparison Using JAFROC (Jack-knife Alternative Free-response Receiver Operating Characteristics) Analysis

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES Chest X-rays (CXR) are one of the most frequently requested imaging examinations and are fundamental to many patient pathways. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of CXR interpretation by reporting radiographers (technologists). METHODS A cohort of consultant radiologists (n = 10) and reporting radiographers (technologists; n = 11) interpreted a bank (n = 106) of adult CXRs that contained a range of pathologies. Jack-knife alternate free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) methodology was used to determine the performance of the observers (JAFROC v4.2). A noninferiority approach was used, with a predefined margin of clinical insignificance of 10% of average consultant radiologist diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS The diagnostic accuracy of the reporting radiographers (figure of merit = 0.828, 95% confidence interval 0.808-0.847) was noninferior to the consultant radiologists (figure of merit = 0.788, 95% confidence interval 0.766-0.811), P < .0001. CONCLUSIONS With appropriate postgraduate education, reporting radiographers are able to interpret CXRs at a level comparable to consultant radiologists.

Impact of radiographer immediate reporting of chest X-rays from general practice on the lung cancer pathway (radioX): study protocol for a randomised control trial.

BackgroundDiagnostic capacity and suboptimal logistics are consistently identified as barriers to timely diagnosis of cancer, especially lung cancer. Immediate chest X-ray (CXR) reporting for patients referred from general practice is advocated in the National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway to improve time to diagnosis of lung cancer and to reduce inappropriate urgent respiratory medicine referral for suspected cancer (2WW) referrals. The aim of radioX is to examine the impact of immediate reporting by radiographers of CXRs requested by general practice (GP) on lung cancer patient pathways.MethodsA two-way comparative study that will compare the time to diagnosis of lung cancer for patients. Internal comparison will be made between those who receive an immediate radiographer report of a GP CXR compared to standard radiographer GP CXR reporting over a 12-month period. External comparison will be made with a similar, neighbouring hospital trust that does not have radiographer CXR reporting. Primary outcome is the effect on the speed of the lung cancer pathway (diagnosis of cancer or discharge). Secondary outcomes include the effect of the pathway on efficiency including the number of repeat CXRs performed in a timely fashion for suspected infection and the effect of immediate reporting of GP CXRs on patient satisfaction.DiscussionThe radioX trial will examine the hypothesis that immediate reporting of CXRs referred from GP reduces the time to diagnosis of lung cancer or discharge from the lung cancer pathway.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN21818068. Registered on 20 June 2017.

Immediate reporting of chest X-rays referred from general practice by reporting radiographers: a single centre feasibility study

Aim To investigate the feasibility of radiographer-led immediate reporting of chest radiographs (CXRs) referred from general practice. Materials and methods This 4-month feasibility study (November 2016 to March 2017) was carried out in a single radiology department at an acute general hospital. Comparison was made between CXRs that received an immediate and routine report to determine the number of lung cancers diagnosed, time to diagnosis of lung cancer, time to computed tomography (CT), and number of urgent referrals to respiratory medicine. Results Forty of 186 sessions (22%) were covered by radiographer immediate reporting. Of the 1,687 CXRs referred from general practice, 558 (33.1%) received an immediate report (radiographer or radiologist). Twenty-two (of 36) CT examinations performed were following an abnormal CXR with an immediate report (mean 0.8 scans/week). Time from CXR to CT was shorter in the immediate report group (n=22 mean 0.9 days SD=2.3) compared to routine reporting (n=14; mean 6.5 SD=3.2; F=27.883, p<0.0001). Time to multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion was shorter in the immediate reporting group (mean 4.1 SD=2.9) compared to routine reporting (mean 10.6; SD=4.5; F=11.59, p<0.0001). No apparent difference was found for time to discussion at treatment MDT. Conclusion It is feasible to introduce a radiographer-led immediate CXR reporting service. Patients can be taken off the lung cancer pathway sooner with the introduction of radiographer immediate reporting of CXRs and this may improve outcomes for patients. A definitive study assessing outcomes is required to determine whether this will have an impact mortality and morbidity for patients.

Increasing radiology capacity within the lung cancer pathway: centralised work-based support for trainee chest x-ray reporting radiographers

Diagnostic capacity and time to diagnosis are frequently identified as a barrier to improving cancer patient outcomes. Maximising the contribution of the medical imaging workforce, including reporting radiographers, is one way to improve service delivery.