A survey to assess audit mechanisms practised by skeletal reporting radiographers

Abstract 

Purpose

This study investigates the role of plain film reporting radiographers and the methods they employ to evaluate the quality of their performance.

Method

The survey was conducted in 2003. Questionnaires were sent, via the universities, to radiographers who had registered on a post-graduate musculoskeletal image interpretation course at a University in England since their introduction (9years earlier).

Results

The response rate was 37% (n=112). Sixty-four percent of the trained reporting radiographers surveyed are creating independent reports on musculoskeletal images and an additional 15% contribute to a double reporting system. Twenty-one percent of the reporting radiographers in this study are not undertaking audit of their practice. Of the 79% who are participating in audit programmes the variety of methods being used are widespread. In order to protect against litigation, 19% of reporting radiographers have a portfolio of evidence supporting their competency; 71% have a specific job description for their advanced role; 73% of reporting radiographers are members of a trade union; and 82% of reporting radiographers work to a departmental protocol.

Conclusion

The majority of reporting radiographers are participating in some form of audit. However, it is imperative that the sizeable minority who are not should initiate this process promptly. It is important that national standards are set so that these audit processes become embedded into practice for the protection of both the patient and radiographer. The inconsistency shown with regard to audit processes and protection against litigation suggests that further clarification is required from the professional bodies.

Keywords: Reporting radiographers, Audit, Litigation, Advanced practice, Role development