Image Interpretation by radiographers in brain, spine and knee MRI examinations: Findings from an accredited postgraduate module

Introduction:
The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of radiographers in image interpretation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain, spine and knee examinations following a nine-month work based postgraduate MRI module.

Methods:
Twenty-seven participants each submitted 60 image commentaries taken from prospective clinical workloads. The image interpretations (n=1,620) comprised brain, spine, and knee MRI examinations. Prevalence of abnormal examinations approximated 53% (brain), 74% (spine), and 73% (knee), and included acute and chronic pathology, normal variants and incidental findings. Each image interpretation was graded against reference standard consultant radiologist definitive report.

Results: The radiographer’s performance on brain image interpretations demonstrated mean accuracy at 86.7% (95% CI 83.4-89.3) with sensitivity and specificity of 84% (95% CI 80.9-86.4) and 89.7% (95% CI 86.2-92.6) respectively. For spinal interpretations the mean accuracy was 86.4% (95% CI 83.4-89.0), sensitivity was 90.2% (95% CI 88.2-92), mean specificity was 75.3% (95% CI 69.4-80.4). The mean results for knee interpretation accuracy were 80.9% (95% CI 77.3-84.1), sensitivity was 83.3% (95% CI 80.8-85.5), with 74.3% specificity (95% CI 67.4-80.4).
Conclusions: The radiographer’s demonstrated skills in brain, spine and knee MRI examination image interpretation. These skills are not to replace radiologist reporting but to meet regulating body standards of proficiency, and to assist decision making in communicating unexpected serious findings, and /or extend scan range and sequences. Further research is required to investigate the impact of these skills on adjusting scan protocols or flagging urgent findings in clinical practice.

1. The Health and Care Professions Council. Standards of Proficiency: Radiographers. London: The Health and Care Professions Council; 2013.
2. The Health and Care Professions Council. Standards of education and training. London: The Health and Care Professions Council; 2017.
3. Society and College of Radiographers. Approval and Accreditation Board Handbook. London: Society and College of Radiographers; 2009.
4. The Society and College of Radiographers. Education and Career Framework for the Radiography Workforce. London: SCoR; 2013.
5. Society and College of Radiographers. Preliminary Clinical Evaluation and Clinical Reporting by Radiographers: Policy and Practice Guidance. London: Society and College of Radiographers; 2013.
6. McConnell J, Devaney C, Gordon M, Goodwin M, Strahan R, Baird M. The impact of a pilot education programme on Queensland radiographer abnormality description of adult appendicular musculo-skeletal trauma. Radiography 2012; 31;18(3):184-90.
7. Hazell L, Motto J, Chipeya L. The influence of image interpretation training on the accuracy of abnormality detection and written comments on musculoskeletal radiographs by South African radiographers. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2015; 30;46(3):302-8.
8. Stevens BJ, Thompson JD. The impact of focused training on abnormality detection and provision of accurate preliminary clinical evaluation in newly qualified radiographers. Radiography 2018; 24(1):47-51.
9. Girling, S. Strudwick R. Seeing Red. Imaging and Therapy Practice 2015; June: 4-7.
10. Centre for Workforce Intelligence. Securing the future workforce supply: Clinical radiology stocktake. London: Centre for Workforce Intelligence; December; 2012.
11. The Royal College of Radiologists. Clinical radiology: UK workforce census 2016 report. The Royal College of Radiologists. October; 2017.
12. The Royal College of Radiologists. Unreported X-rays, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans: Results of a snapshot survey of English National Health Service (NHS) trusts. The Royal College of Radiologists. March; 2015.
13. The Royal College of Radiologists. Diagnostic radiology: Our patients are still waiting……… London. The Royal College of Radiologists.2016.
14. The Care Quality Commission. The state of health care and adult social care in England 2016/17 (Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 83(4)(a) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008). Newcastle upon Tyne: House of Commons; 2017.
15. Department of Health. Improving outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer. London: HMSO; 2011.
16. The Royal College of Radiologists. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRO) equipment, operations and planning in the NHS: Report from the Clinical Imaging Board. The Royal College of Radiologists. 2017.
17. NHS England. Next steps on the NHS Five Year Forward View (Gateway number 06669). Leeds: NHS England; 2017.
18. Woznitza N, Piper K, Rowe S, West C. Optimizing patient care in radiology through team-working: a case study from the United Kingdom. Radiography 2014; 20(3):258-63.
19. Snaith B, Hardy M. Radiographer abnormality detection schemes in the trauma environment—An assessment of current practice. Radiography 2008; 14(4):277-81.
20. Snaith B, Hardy M, Lewis EF. Reducing image interpretation errors–Do communication strategies undermine this?. Radiography 2014; 20(3):230-4.
21. Brealey S. Measuring the effects of image interpretation: an evaluative framework. Clinical radiology. 2001 May 1;56(5):341-7.
22. Hardy M, Flintham K, Snaith B, Lewis EF. The impact of image test bank construction on radiographic interpretation outcomes: A comparison study. Radiography 2016;31;22(2):166-70.
23. Pinto A, Acampora C, Pinto F, Kourdioukova E, Romano L, Verstraete K. Learning from diagnostic errors: a good way to improve education in radiology. Eur J Radiol 2011; 30;78(3):372-6.
24. Leslie, A. Jones, AJ. Goddard, PR. The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by radiologists. Br J Radiol 2000; 73:1052-1055.
25. Berbaum KS, Franken JR EA, Anderson KL, Dorfman DD, Erkonen WE, Farrar GP, Geraghty JJ, Gleason TJ, Macnaughton ME, Phillips ME, Renfrew DL. The influence of clinical history on visual search with single and multiple abnormalities. Invest Radiol 1993; 1;28(3):191-201.
26. Hawkins, CM. Anton CG. Bankes, WM. Leach, AD. Zeno, MJ. Pryor, RM. Larson, DB. Improving the Availability of Clinical History Accompanying Radiographic Examinations in a Large Pediatric Radiology Department. AJR 2014; 202:790-796.
27. Brealey S, Scally AJ. Methodological approaches to evaluating the practice of radiographers’ interpretation of images: a review. Radiography. 2008 Dec 1;14: e46-54.
28. Brealey S, Scally AJ, Thomas NB. Methodological standards in radiographer plain film reading performance studies. The British journal of radiology. 2002 Feb;75(890):107-13.
29. The Royal College of Radiologists. Standards for the reporting and interpretation of imaging investigations. London: The Royal College of Radiologists; 2006.
30. Brady A. Error and discrepancy in radiology: Inevitable or avoidable? Insights into Imaging 2017;8(1):171-182.
31. Brealey S, Piper K, King D, Bland, M, Caddick J, Campbell P, Gibbon A, Highland A, Jenkins N, Petty D, Warren D. Observer agreement in the reporting of knee and lumbar spine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging examinations: Selectively trained MR radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist. Eur J Radiol 2013;82.10: e597-e605.
32. Krampla W, Roesel M, Svoboda K, Nachbagauer A, Gschwantler M, Hruby W. MRI of the knee: how do field strength and radiologist’s experience influence diagnostic accuracy and interobserver correlation in assessing chondral and meniscal lesions and the integrity of the anterior cruciate ligament? Eur Radiol 2009;1;19(6):1519-28.
33. Royal College of Radiologists. Audit Live An audit of Radiology Report Quality. London: The Royal College of Radiologists; 2010.
34. Brealey S, King DG, Hahn S, Godfrey C, Crowe MT, Bloor K, Crane S, Longsworth D. The costs and effects of introducing selectively trained radiographers to an A&E reporting service: a retrospective controlled before and after study. The British journal of radiology. 2005 Jun;78(930):499-505.
35. Piper K, Buscall K, Thomas N. MRI reporting by radiographers: Findings of an accredited postgraduate programme. Radiography 2010;16.2: 136-142.
36. Scally AJ, Brealey S. Confidence intervals and sample size calculations for studies of film-reading performance. Clinical radiology. 2003 Mar 1;58(3):238-46.
37. Piper K, Buscall KL. MRI reporting by radiographers: The construction of an objective structured examination. Radiography 2008;14.2: 78-89.
38. Kim YW, Mansfield LT. Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors. Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Mar;202(3):465-70.
39. Cosson P, Dash R. A taxonomy of anatomical and pathological entities to support commenting on radiographs (preliminary clinical evaluation). Radiography 2015; 28;21(1):47-53.
40. Berlin L. Radiologic errors, past, present and future. Diagnosis 2014; 1:79–84.
41. Lee CS, Nagy PG, Weaver SJ, Newman-Toker DE. Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. Am J Roentgenol 2013;201(3):611-7.
42. Kapeller P, Barber R, Vermeulen RJ, Ader H, Scheltens P, Freidl W, Almkvist O, Moretti M, Del Ser T, Vaghfeldt P, Enzinger C. Visual rating of age-related white matter changes on magnetic resonance imaging. Stroke 2003;1;34(2):441-5.
43. Wahlund LO, Barkhof F, Fazekas F, Bronge L, Augustin M, Sjögren M, Wallin A, Adèr H, Leys D, Pantoni L, Pasquier F. A new rating scale for age-related white matter changes applicable to MRI and CT. Stroke 2001;1;32(6):1318-22.
44. Van Rijn JC, Klemetso N, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Hulsmans FJ, Peul WC, Den Heeten GJ, Stam J, Majoie CB. Observer variation in the evaluation of lumbar herniated discs and root compression: spiral CT compared with MRI. Brit Journal Radiol 2006;79(941):372-7.
45. Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Carragee E, Carrino J, Kaiser J, Sequeiros RT, Lecomte AR, Grove MR, Blood EA, Pearson LH. Reliability of readings of magnetic resonance imaging features of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2008;15;33(14):1605.
46. Devitt BM, O’Sullivan R, Feller JA, Lash N, Porter TJ, Webster KE, Whitehead TS. MRI is not reliable in diagnosing of concomitant anterolateral ligament and anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Tr A 2017;1;25(4):1345-51.
47. Link TM, Neumann J, Li X. Prestructural cartilage assessment using MRI. J Magn Reson 2017; 1;45(4):949-65.