Nuclear medicine image interpretation by radiographers: findings of an accredited postgraduate module

Journal article


Lockwood, P. and Dolbear, G. 2018. Nuclear medicine image interpretation by radiographers: findings of an accredited postgraduate module. Radiography. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2018.11.007
AuthorsLockwood, P. and Dolbear, G.
Abstract

Introduction:
The study aimed to analyse the results of radiographer’s image interpretation of nuclear medicine (NM) examinations following a nine-month postgraduate module.

Methods:
Twenty participants completed 60 summative image commentaries each at the end of the module from prospective NM worklists in England. Each submitted a mixed selection of examinations in bone, lung, renal, and thyroid scans. Prevalence of abnormalities was 51% incorporating acute and chronic pathology, normal variants and incidental findings. Every commentary was marked against reference standard radiologist definitive reports. Statistical analysis included Kappa (k), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (RS).

Results:
Bone scan sensitivity and specificity was 93% (95% CI 91.3-95.6) and 88% (95% CI 84.3-90.9) respectively, accuracy at 91.5% (95% CI 88.6-93.7), with k=0.82, ICC= 0.904, RS=0.826. Lung scans demonstrated a sensitivity of 92.6% (95% CI 85.7-96.8), specificity was 92.1% (95% CI 88.7-94.1), accuracy 92.3% (95% CI 87.7-95.0), k=0.83, ICC=0.910, RS=0.835. Renal scan sensitivity was 95% (95% CI 91.0-97.3), with 95.2% specificity (95% CI 91.8-97.3), accuracy were 95% (95% CI 91.4-97.3), k=0.90, ICC=0.948, RS=0.907. Thyroid scans sensitivity was 88% (95% CI 83.1-91.4), with 93% specificity (95% CI 85.9-96.8), accuracy were 90.2% (95% CI 84.3-93.8), k=0.80, ICC=0.897, RS=0.813.

Conclusion:
In this small pilot study, the image interpretation ability in assessing prospective NM examinations in a clinical environment displayed encouraging results. Further work is recommended to evaluate a larger sample and case selection.

KeywordsRadiography; Image interpretation; Radiographers
Year2018
JournalRadiography
PublisherElsevier
ISSN1078-8174
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2018.11.007
Related URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817418301755
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/radiography
Fundernone
Publication dates
Online10 Dec 2018
Publication process dates
Deposited11 Dec 2018
Accepted27 Nov 2018
Accepted author manuscript
Output statusPublished
References

References
1. The Royal College of Radiologists. Clinical radiology: UK workforce census 2017 report. The Royal College of Radiologists. September; 2018.
2. Centre for Workforce Intelligence. Securing the future workforce supply: Clinical radiology stocktake. London: Centre for Workforce Intelligence; December; 2012.
3. The Royal College of Radiologists. Clinical radiology: UK workforce census 2016 report. The Royal College of Radiologists. October; 2017.
4. The Royal College of Radiologists. Teleradiology and outsourcing census. The Royal College of Radiologists. May; 2010.
5. NHS Improvement. Quality, service improvement and redesign (QSIR) tools. [Accessed 16.09.2018] https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/quality-service-improvement-and...
6. 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.
7. Department of Health. Improving outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer. London: HMSO; 2011.
8. NHS England. Diagnostic Imaging Dataset Statistical Release: Provisional monthly statistics, July 2016 to July 2017. November; 2017.
9. NHS England. Next steps on the NHS Five Year Forward View (Gateway number 06669). Leeds: NHS England; 2017.
10. The Kings Fund. Quality Monitoring Report November 2017: how is the NHS performing? The Kings Fund; 2017.
11. NHS Improvement. Quarter 2 2017/18 performance report: Performance of the NHS Provider Sector month ended 30 September 2017.
12. European Federation of Radiographer Societies. EFRS Definition of a radiographer. European Federation of Radiographer Societies; 2011.
13. Hogg P, Williams P, Norton S. Extended roles of radiographers working in nuclear medicine: a survey of current practice. Radiography 1997;3(3):179-90.
14. Hogg P, Holmes K. The interpretation of nuclear medicine data by non-medical health care professionals: developments in the United Kingdom. Journal of Diagnostic Radiography and Imaging. 2000;3(2).
15. The Health and Care Professions Council. Standards of Proficiency: Radiographers. London: The Health and Care Professions Council; 2013.
16. The Health and Care Professions Council. Standards of education and training. London: The Health and Care Professions Council; 2017.
17. Society and College of Radiographers. Approval and Accreditation Board Handbook. London: Society and College of Radiographers; 2009.
18. The Society and College of Radiographers. Education and Career Framework for the Radiography Workforce. London: SCoR; 2013.
19. Society and College of Radiographers. Preliminary Clinical Evaluation and Clinical Reporting by Radiographers: Policy and Practice Guidance. London: Society and College of Radiographers; 2013.
20. 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.
21. Welsh ME, Wakefield K, Holmes KG. The impact of radiographer reporting on the care and management of the patients in nuclear medicine. Nucl Med Commun 2005; 26(3):278.
22. Brealey S. Measuring the effects of image interpretation: an evaluative framework. Clinical radiology. 2001 May 1;56(5):341-7.
23. 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.
24. The Royal College of Radiologists. Audit Live Peer Review- Using Double Reporting as a Tool for Revalidation. London: The Royal College of Radiologists; 2010.
25. British Nuclear Medicine Society. Guidelines for the issue of reports by non-medical staff. BNMS; 2005.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Brealey S, Scally AJ. Methodological approaches to evaluating the practice of radiographers’ interpretation of images: a review. Radiography 2008:14; e46-54.
29. Brealey S, Scally AJ, Thomas NB. Methodological standards in radiographer plain film reading performance studies. Br J Radiol 2002;75(890):107-13.
30. van Ooijen PM, Jorritsma W. Medical Imaging Informatics in Nuclear Medicine. In Quality in Nuclear Medicine 2017:241-267.
31. xxxxxxxxxx (blinded for review)
32. Scally AJ, Brealey S. Confidence intervals and sample size calculations for studies of film-reading performance. Clinical Radiology 2003;58(3):238-46.
33. Department of Health. Notes for Guidance on the Clinical Administration of Radiopharmaceuticals and Use of Sealed Radioactive Sources: Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee. Public Health England. Gateway number 2016613. February 2017. Oxon. UK.
34. Custis K. A study to assess the feasibility of introducing radiographer reporting in a nuclear medicine department. Nucl Med Commun 2006: 27(3):290.
35. Svasti-Salee D, Flanigan JJ, Conry BG, Wetton CW, Akhurst S. The reliability of radiographer based interpretation in acute reporting of V/Q scans: a prospective assessment. Nucl Med Commun 2004;25(4):408.
36. Khonsari M, Sulkin T. Audit of radiographer reporting of perfusion lung scans. Nucl Med Commun 2004;25(3):315.
37. Elliot, L. Radiographer reporting in the NM department: a learning curve? Radiography 2003; 9(3): 247-251.
38. Mckillop JH, Williams ED, Harding LK. Consistency in nuclear medicine reporting — a pilot study using bone scans. Nucl Med Commun 1990:11(3):253-258.
39. Lensing AW, van Beek EJ, Demers C, Tiel-van Buul MM, Yakemchuk V, van Dongen A, Coates G, Ginsberg JS, Hirsh J, ten Cate JW, Büller HR. Ventilation-perfusion lung scanning and the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: improvement of observer agreement by the use of a lung segment reference chart. Thrombosis and haemostasis 1992;68(03):245-9.
40. Patel K, Charron M, Hoberman A, Brown ML, Rogers KD. Intra-and interobserver variability in interpretation of DMSA scans using a set of standardized criteria. Pediatr Radiol 1993:1;23(7):506-9.
41. Zuckier LS, Freeman LM. Nonosseous, Nonurologic Uptake on Bone Scintigraphy: Atlas and Analysis. Semin Nucl Med 2010; 40:242-256.
42. The Royal College of Radiologists. Standards for interpretation and reporting of imaging investigations (second edition). The Royal College of Radiologists. March; 2018.

ContributorsDolbear, G.
Page range1-7
Permalink -

https://repository.canterbury.ac.uk/item/88y02/nuclear-medicine-image-interpretation-by-radiographers-findings-of-an-accredited-postgraduate-module

Download files

Accepted author manuscript
  • 33
    total views
  • 5
    total downloads
  • 1
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month

Export as

Related outputs

Multi-professional image interpretation: performance in preliminary clinical evaluation of appendicular radiographs
Lockwood, P. and Pittock, L. 2019. Multi-professional image interpretation: performance in preliminary clinical evaluation of appendicular radiographs. Radiography. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2019.04.013
Computed tomography head and facial bones review of a 2,700 year old Egyptian mummy
Lockwood, P., Elliott, J., Nelson, A. and Harris, S. 2019. Computed tomography head and facial bones review of a 2,700 year old Egyptian mummy . BJR Case Reports. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjrcr.20190076
Visual function assessment of diagnostic radiography students
Lockwood, P. and Blackman, A. 2019. Visual function assessment of diagnostic radiography students. Radiography. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2019.10.012
An evaluation of CT head reporting radiographers' scope of practice within the United Kingdom
Lockwood, P. 2019. An evaluation of CT head reporting radiographers' scope of practice within the United Kingdom. Radiography. 26 (2), pp. 102-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2019.09.001
Image Interpretation by radiographers in brain, spine and knee MRI examinations: Findings from an accredited postgraduate module
Lockwood, P. and Dolbear, G. 2018. Image Interpretation by radiographers in brain, spine and knee MRI examinations: Findings from an accredited postgraduate module. Radiography. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2018.05.009
Evaluation of an equilibrium phase free-breathing dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI prototype sequence compared to traditional breath-held MRI acquisition in liver oncology patients
Hopkinson, G., Lockwood, P. and Dolbear, G. 2018. Evaluation of an equilibrium phase free-breathing dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI prototype sequence compared to traditional breath-held MRI acquisition in liver oncology patients. Radiography. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2018.01.001
CT Sinus and facial bones reporting by radiographers: findings of an accredited postgraduate programme
Lockwood, P. 2017. CT Sinus and facial bones reporting by radiographers: findings of an accredited postgraduate programme. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 46 (4). https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20160440
Exploring variation and trends in adherence to national occupational standards for reporting radiographers
Lockwood, P. 2017. Exploring variation and trends in adherence to national occupational standards for reporting radiographers. Journal of Social Science & Allied Health Professions. 1 (1), pp. 20-27.
Observer performance in Computed Tomography head reporting
Lockwood, P. 2017. Observer performance in Computed Tomography head reporting. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences. 48 (1), pp. 22-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2016.08.001
Exploring the benefits of magnetic resonance imaging reporting by radiographers: A UK perspective
Lockwood, P. 2016. Exploring the benefits of magnetic resonance imaging reporting by radiographers: A UK perspective. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences. 47 (2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2015.12.083
An economic evaluation of introducing a skills mix approach to CT head reporting in clinical practice.
Lockwood, P. 2016. An economic evaluation of introducing a skills mix approach to CT head reporting in clinical practice. Radiography. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2015.09.004
Intraorbital foreign body detection and localisation by radiographers: a preliminary JAFROC observer performance study
Lockwood, P., Pittock, L., Lockwood, C., Jeffery, C. and Piper, K. 2015. Intraorbital foreign body detection and localisation by radiographers: a preliminary JAFROC observer performance study. Radiography. 2015, pp. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2015.06.005
Out of the comfort zone (Part 2)
Lockwood, P. 2013. Out of the comfort zone (Part 2).
AFROC analysis of reporting radiographer’s performance in CT head interpretation
Lockwood, P. and Piper, K. 2015. AFROC analysis of reporting radiographer’s performance in CT head interpretation. Radiography. 21 (3), pp. e90-e95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2015.04.001
Out of the comfort zone (Part 1)
Lockwood, P. 2013. Out of the comfort zone (Part 1).
Origins of the Reporting Radiographer
Lockwood, P. 2013. Origins of the Reporting Radiographer.
Patient safety and quality improvement: Iatrogenic venous air embolism in diagnostic imaging
Lockwood, P. and Breen, W. 2013. Patient safety and quality improvement: Iatrogenic venous air embolism in diagnostic imaging.
CT head reporting by radiographers: Findings of an accredited postgraduate programme
Lockwood, P. and Piper, K. 2013. CT head reporting by radiographers: Findings of an accredited postgraduate programme.
CT skull base & calvarium normal variant pitfalls
Lockwood, P. 2013. CT skull base & calvarium normal variant pitfalls.
CT head reporting by radiographers: results of an accredited postgraduate programme
Lockwood, P., Piper, K. and Pittock, L. 2015. CT head reporting by radiographers: results of an accredited postgraduate programme. Radiography. 21 (3), pp. e85-e89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2014.12.001
A 58-year-old female with miliary tuberculosis of the spleen
Dolbear, G. 2002. A 58-year-old female with miliary tuberculosis of the spleen. Synergy News.