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

INTRODUCTION:
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.

METHODS:
An efficient and effective centralised model of workplace training support was designed for a cohort of trainee chest X-ray (CXR) reporting radiographers. A comprehensive schedule of tutorials was planned and aligned with the curriculum of a post-graduate certificate in CXR reporting. Trainees were supported via a hub and spoke model (centralised training model), with the majority of education provided by a core group of experienced CXR reporting radiographers. Trainee and departmental feedback on the model was obtained using an online survey.

RESULTS:
Fourteen trainees were recruited from eight National Health Service Trusts across London. Significant efficiencies of scale were possible with centralised support (48 h) compared to traditional workplace support (348 h). Trainee and manager feedback overall was positive. Trainees and managers both reported good trainee support, translation of learning to practice and increased confidence. Logistics, including trainee travel and release, were identified as areas for improvement.

CONCLUSION:
Centralised workplace training support is an effective and efficient method to create sustainable diagnostic capacity and support improvements in the lung cancer pathway.

1. World Health Organization. Diagnostic Imaging.
Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2017 [cited 2017
27 June 2017]. Available from: http://www.who.int/dia
gnostic_imaging/en/.
2. Independent Cancer Taskforce. Achieving world-class
cancer outcomes: A strategy for England 2015-2020. 2015
London
3. International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN
2012: Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence
worldwide in 2012. Geneva: World Health Organisation;
2012.
4. Elliss-Brookes L, McPhail S, Ives A, et al. Routes to
diagnosis for cancer – determining the patient journey
using multiple routine data sets. Br J Cancer 2012; 107:
1220–6.
5. Cancer Research UK. CancerStats key facts – lung cancer.
2011.
6. Iyen-Omofoman B, Tata LJ, Baldwin DR, et al. Using
socio-demographic and early clinical features in general
practice to identify people with lung cancer earlier. Thorax
2013; 68: 451–9.
7. O’Dowd EL, McKeever TM, Baldwin DR, et al. What
characteristics of primary care and patients are associated
with early death in patients with lung cancer in the UK?
Thorax 2015; 70: 161–8.
8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Suspected cancer: recognition and referral (NG12).
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015.
9. 2020 Delivery. Horizon Scanning: An evaluation of
imaging capacity across the NHS in England. Cancer
Research UK; 2015.
10. Royal College of Radiologists. Clinical radiology UK
workforce census 2015 report. London: Royal College of
Radiologists; 2016.
11. College of Radiographers. Diagnostic Radiography UK
Workforce Report 2014. College of Radiographers,
London, 2014.
12. Royal College of Radiologists. Our Patients Are Still
Waiting .... Royal College of Radiologists, London, 2016.
13. Beardmore C, Woznitza N, Goodman S. The Radiography
Workforce Current Challenges and Changing Needs.
College of Radiographers, London, 2016.
14. Woznitza N, Piper K, Rowe S, et al. Optimizing patient
care in radiology through team-working: A case study
from the United Kingdom. Radiography 2014; 20: 258–
63.
15. Snaith B, Hardy M, Lewis EF. Radiographer reporting in
the UK: A longitudinal analysis. Radiography 2015; 21:
119–23.
16. Snaith B, Milner RC, Harris MA. Beyond image
interpretation: Capturing the impact of radiographer
advanced practice through activity diaries. Radiography
2016; 22: e233–8.
17. Brealey S, Piper K, King D, et al. 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: e597–
605.
18. Piper K, Buscall KL, Thomas N. MRI reporting by
radiographers: Findings of an accredited postgraduate
programme. Radiography 2010; 16: 136–42.
19. Piper K, Cox S, Paterson A, et al. Chest reporting by
radiographers: Findings of an accredited postgraduate
programme. Radiography 2014; 20: 94–9.
20. Woznitza N, Piper K, Burke S, et al. Adult chest
radiograph reporting by radiographers: Preliminary data
from an in-house audit programme. Radiography 2014; 20:
223–9.
21. Brealey S, Scally A, Hahn S, et al. Accuracy of
radiographer plain radiograph reporting in
clinical practice: A meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2005; 60:
232–41.
22. Woznitza N, Piper K, Burke S, et al. Agreement
between expert thoracic radiologists and the chest
radiograph reports provided by consultant
radiologists and reporting radiographers in clinical
practice: Review of a single clinical site. Radiography
2018; 3: 234–9.
23. Woznitza N, Piper K, Burke S, et al. Chest X-ray
interpretation by radiographers is not inferior to
radiologists: A multi-reader, multi-case comparison using
JAFROC (jack-knife alternative free response receiveroperator characteristics) analysis. Acad Radiol 2018; In
Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.03.026
24. NHS Benchmarking Network. Radiology Benchmarking
2016 National report. NHS Benchmarking Network,
London, 2016.
25. Milner RC, Culpan G, Snaith B. Radiographer reporting in
the UK: Is the current scope of practice limiting plain-film
reporting capacity? Br J Radiol 2016; 89: 20160228.
26. England NHS. Five Year Forward View. NHS England,
London, 2014.
27. College of Radiographers. Preliminary Clinical Evaluation
and Clinical Reporting by Radiographers: Policy and
Practice Guidance. College of Radiographers, London,
2013.
28. Royal College of Radiologists, Society and College of
Radiographers. Team working in clinical imaging. London:
Royal College of Radiologists and the Society and College
of Radiographers, 2012.
29. British Institute of Radiology, Society & College of
Radiographers, Royal College of Radiologists. A guide to
understanding the implications of the Ionising Radiation
(Medical Exposure) Regulations in diagnostic and
interventional radiology. London: Royal College of
Radiologists, 2015.
30. Patton Q. M. Utilization Focused Evaluation: The New
Century Text, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, London, 1997.
31. Straits W, Wilke R. How constructivist are we?
Representations of transmission and participatory models
of instruction in the journal of college science teaching. J
Coll Sci Teach 2007; 36: 58–61.
32. Piper K, Paterson A, Godfrey R. Accuracy of
radiographers’ reports in the interpretation of radiographic
examinations of the skeletal system: A review of 6796
cases. Radiography 2005; 11: 27–34.
33. Royal College of Radiologists. Standards For Interpretation
and Reporting of Imaging Investigations. Royal College of
Radiologists, London, 2018.
34. Hardy M, Snaith B. Radiographer interpretation of trauma
radiographs: Issues for radiography education providers.
Radiography 2009; 15: 101–5.
35. Leishman L. Can skeletal image reporting be taught online:
Perspectives of experienced reporting radiographers?
Radiography 2013; 19: 104–12.
36. Price RC, Le Masurier SB. Longitudinal changes in
extended roles in radiography: A new perspective.
Radiography 2007; 13: 18–29.
37. ACE Lung Cancer Pathway Cluster. Improving diagnostic
pathways for patients with suspected lung cancer: Final
Report. London: Macmillian, Cancer Research UK & NHS
England, 2017.
38. Woznitza N, Piper K, Rowe S, et al. Immediate reporting
of chest X-rays referred from general practice by reporting
radiographers: A single centre feasibility study. Clin Radiol
2018; 73: 507.e501–8.
39. Department of Health. The Handbook to the NHS
Constitution for England. Department of Health, London,
2012.