E Kjelle1, A K Schanche2, L Hafskjold3. 1. Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University College of Southeast Norway, Po Box 7053, N-3007, Drammen, Norway; Science Centre Health and Technology, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University College of Southeast Norway, Po Box 7053, N-3007, Drammen, Norway. Electronic address: elin.kjelle@usn.no. 2. Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Po box 800, N-3004, Drammen, Norway. 3. Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University College of Southeast Norway, Po Box 7053, N-3007, Drammen, Norway; Science Centre Health and Technology, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University College of Southeast Norway, Po Box 7053, N-3007, Drammen, Norway.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to survey radiographers and radiologists' assessment of plain radiographs to identify the imaging clinicians' differences in acceptance of image quality. METHOD: An online, questionnaire was distributed among radiographers (n = 116) and radiologists (n = 76) in a hospital trust in Norway, including 30 clinical cases (one image and a short referral text) that were divided into 3 categories; keep, could keep and reject, based on European guidelines. When rejecting, the respondents identified the main reason by ticking a list (positioning, collimation, centering, artifact or exposure error). Group differences were explored using 2-tailed chi-squared test. Inter-subjectivity was measured using Cohen's kappa for multi-rater sample. RESULTS: In total, 36% of the radiographers (n = 42) and 14% of the radiologists (n = 14) responded to the survey. Total response rate was 30% (56/192). Analysis showed significant difference between radiographers and radiologists in the categories of Reject (χ2 = 6.3, df = 1, p = 0.01), and Could keep (χ2 = 6.3, df = 1, p = 0.01), identifying radiologists as keeping more images compared to radiographers. Agreement among radiographers (Cohen's κ: 0,39; 95% CI: 0.30-0.48; p < 0.001) and radiologists (Cohen's κ: 0,23; 95% CI: 0.09-0.37; p < 0.001) respectively, is fair. The most common reason for rejecting an image is suboptimal positioning. Suboptimal collimation constituted 15% of the rejected images among radiographers, compared to 5% among radiologists. Centering, artifacts and exposure error showed quite similar rates as reasons for rejection. CONCLUSION: Radiographers and radiologists seem to agree on the assessment of good quality images, however, radiographers seem more reluctant to accept images of lower quality than radiologists. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Further research on reasons for differences in image quality assessment between radiographers and radiologists is needed. This could enable reduction in reject rates and increase image quality in conventional X-ray examinations.
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to survey radiographers and radiologists' assessment of plain radiographs to identify the imaging clinicians' differences in acceptance of image quality. METHOD: An online, questionnaire was distributed among radiographers (n = 116) and radiologists (n = 76) in a hospital trust in Norway, including 30 clinical cases (one image and a short referral text) that were divided into 3 categories; keep, could keep and reject, based on European guidelines. When rejecting, the respondents identified the main reason by ticking a list (positioning, collimation, centering, artifact or exposure error). Group differences were explored using 2-tailed chi-squared test. Inter-subjectivity was measured using Cohen's kappa for multi-rater sample. RESULTS: In total, 36% of the radiographers (n = 42) and 14% of the radiologists (n = 14) responded to the survey. Total response rate was 30% (56/192). Analysis showed significant difference between radiographers and radiologists in the categories of Reject (χ2 = 6.3, df = 1, p = 0.01), and Could keep (χ2 = 6.3, df = 1, p = 0.01), identifying radiologists as keeping more images compared to radiographers. Agreement among radiographers (Cohen's κ: 0,39; 95% CI: 0.30-0.48; p < 0.001) and radiologists (Cohen's κ: 0,23; 95% CI: 0.09-0.37; p < 0.001) respectively, is fair. The most common reason for rejecting an image is suboptimal positioning. Suboptimal collimation constituted 15% of the rejected images among radiographers, compared to 5% among radiologists. Centering, artifacts and exposure error showed quite similar rates as reasons for rejection. CONCLUSION: Radiographers and radiologists seem to agree on the assessment of good quality images, however, radiographers seem more reluctant to accept images of lower quality than radiologists. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Further research on reasons for differences in image quality assessment between radiographers and radiologists is needed. This could enable reduction in reject rates and increase image quality in conventional X-ray examinations.