AIM: To determine current practice and perceptions of the adequacy of training and support received for the reporting of skeletal surveys in suspected physical child abuse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A list of telephone numbers of UK hospitals with a radiology department was obtained from the Royal College of Radiologists. One hundred hospitals were then randomly selected for inclusion in the survey. An 18-item questionnaire was successfully administered to consultant radiologists from 84 departments. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of departments had a named radiologist to report their skeletal surveys, 16% assigned surveys to a random radiologist, and 23% referred them elsewhere. Only 52% of departments had a dedicated paediatric radiologist, thus in a significant proportion of departments (25%) initial reports on skeletal surveys for physical abuse were provided by non-paediatric radiologists. Fifteen percent did not have ready access to a paediatric radiology opinion. Sixty-one percent thought that the service could be improved. Expert evidence was provided by 5% of respondents. Seventy-three percent would never consider providing expert evidence, even if given adequate radiology and/or legal training. CONCLUSION: The survey shows significant dissatisfaction amongst consultant radiologists with the current service, confirms a low number of paediatric radiologists taking on this work, and suggests the potential to increase numbers of radiology child abuse experts by 27% if given improved training and support. Appropriate service and education strategies should be implemented.
AIM: To determine current practice and perceptions of the adequacy of training and support received for the reporting of skeletal surveys in suspected physical child abuse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A list of telephone numbers of UK hospitals with a radiology department was obtained from the Royal College of Radiologists. One hundred hospitals were then randomly selected for inclusion in the survey. An 18-item questionnaire was successfully administered to consultant radiologists from 84 departments. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of departments had a named radiologist to report their skeletal surveys, 16% assigned surveys to a random radiologist, and 23% referred them elsewhere. Only 52% of departments had a dedicated paediatric radiologist, thus in a significant proportion of departments (25%) initial reports on skeletal surveys for physical abuse were provided by non-paediatric radiologists. Fifteen percent did not have ready access to a paediatric radiology opinion. Sixty-one percent thought that the service could be improved. Expert evidence was provided by 5% of respondents. Seventy-three percent would never consider providing expert evidence, even if given adequate radiology and/or legal training. CONCLUSION: The survey shows significant dissatisfaction amongst consultant radiologists with the current service, confirms a low number of paediatric radiologists taking on this work, and suggests the potential to increase numbers of radiology child abuse experts by 27% if given improved training and support. Appropriate service and education strategies should be implemented.