OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if dedicated gastrointestinal technologists could be trained to properly perform esophagography and double-contrast barium enema examinations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients undergoing double-contrast barium enema examinations and 123 patients undergoing esophagographic examinations were included in the study. The study was conducted over a 4-month period, with examinations performed by eight gastrointestinal technologists, 10 radiology residents, and four staff radiologists. Four random lists were generated for each set of examinations. Each staff gastrointestinal radiologist, who was unaware of who had performed the examination, independently scored the representative radiographs. RESULTS: For the double-contrast barium enema examinations, no statistically significant differences were found between the technologists and residents for amount of barium used, degree of distention, cecal opacification, and quality of spot radiographs. The technologist-performed examinations had a statistically significant lower mean fluoroscopy time (3.2 min, compared with 4.0 min for staff radiologists and 5.7 min for residents). For the esophagrams, no statistically significant differences between technologists and residents were found for single-contrast esophagrams; radiographs of the gastric cardia; assessment of motility, reflux, and transit of a solid bolus; and fluoroscopy time. Double-contrast esophagrams obtained by technologists received a better mean score than did those of the residents. CONCLUSION: Radiology technologists can be trained to perform high-quality esophagography and double-contrast barium enema examinations without an unacceptably high radiation dose.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if dedicated gastrointestinal technologists could be trained to properly perform esophagography and double-contrast barium enema examinations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients undergoing double-contrast barium enema examinations and 123 patients undergoing esophagographic examinations were included in the study. The study was conducted over a 4-month period, with examinations performed by eight gastrointestinal technologists, 10 radiology residents, and four staff radiologists. Four random lists were generated for each set of examinations. Each staff gastrointestinal radiologist, who was unaware of who had performed the examination, independently scored the representative radiographs. RESULTS: For the double-contrast barium enema examinations, no statistically significant differences were found between the technologists and residents for amount of barium used, degree of distention, cecal opacification, and quality of spot radiographs. The technologist-performed examinations had a statistically significant lower mean fluoroscopy time (3.2 min, compared with 4.0 min for staff radiologists and 5.7 min for residents). For the esophagrams, no statistically significant differences between technologists and residents were found for single-contrast esophagrams; radiographs of the gastric cardia; assessment of motility, reflux, and transit of a solid bolus; and fluoroscopy time. Double-contrast esophagrams obtained by technologists received a better mean score than did those of the residents. CONCLUSION: Radiology technologists can be trained to perform high-quality esophagography and double-contrast barium enema examinations without an unacceptably high radiation dose.