Background Assessing the quality of diagnostic images is subjective and influenced by factors such education, skills, and experience of the assessor. This study aims to explore the radiographers’ assessments of medical usefulness or rejection of X-ray images in specific cases. Results Eighty-one radiographers from different countries responded to the questionnaire distributed online at the EFRS research HUB at ECR 2020 (a 15% response rate). Forty-two percent of the respondents practiced in the UK and Ireland. In addition to rejecting or keeping images in the presented 30 cases and giving a main reason for the images rejected, the participants explained their choice using comments, 1176 comments were obtained. Sixty percent of the comments were on kept images. The respondents kept on average 63% of the images. In the “Keep”, “Could keep”, and “Reject” categories on average 84%, 63% and 43% of images were kept respectively. The most common reasons given for rejecting an image were suboptimal positioning and centering. Potential diagnostic value and radiation protection were indicated as reasons to keep an image perceived as of low quality reported in n = 353 and n = 33 comments respectively. Conclusions There is an agreement internationally on what makes a good quality X-ray image. However, the opinion on medical usefulness of images of low or poor quality compared to image criteria varies. Diagnostic capability and radiation protection was the rationale used for keeping images not fulfilling image criteria. There seems to be a need for diagnostic quality to be included in image assessment in clinical practice.

No abstract

The referral is the key source of information that enables radiologists and radiographers to provide quality services. However, the frequency of suboptimal referrals is widely reported. This research reviews the literature to illuminate the challenges suboptimal referrals present to the delivery of care in radiology departments. The concept of suboptimal referral includes information, that is; missing, insufficient, inconsistent, misleading, hard to interpret or wrong. The research uses the four ethical principles of non-maleficence, beneficence, Autonomy and Justice as an analytic framework.Suboptimal referrals can cause harm by hindering safe contrast-media administration, proper radiation protection by justification of procedures, and compassionate patient care. Suboptimal referrals also hinder promoting patient benefits from the correct choice of imaging modality and protocol, an optimal performed examination, and an accurate radiology report. Additionally, patient autonomy is compromised from the lack of information needed to facilitate benefit–risk communication. Finally, suboptimal referrals challenge justice based on lack of reasonable patient prioritising and the unfairness caused by unnecessary examinations.These findings illuminate how suboptimal referrals can inhibit good health and well-being for patients in relation to safety, missed opportunities, patient anxiety and dissatisfaction. The ethical challenges identified calls for solutions. Referral-decision support tools and artificial intelligence may improve referral quality, when implemented. Strategies addressing efforts of radiology professionals are inevitable, including gatekeeping, shared decision-making and inter-professional communication; thereby raising awareness of the importance of good referral quality and promoting commitment to ethical professional conduct.

Objectives To explore radiographers’ actions toward inappropriate referrals and hindrances to assessing referrals. Methods An online survey was distributed to radiographers via the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT) networks. The questionnaire consisted of 5-point Likert scale questions on radiographers’ actions to supplement referral information, actions for unjustified referrals and hindrances to referral assessment. The questionnaire was validated using a test–retest reliability analysis. Kappa values ≥ 0.6 were accepted. SPSS software was used for data analysis and chi-square tests to compare subgroups. Results Total responses received were 279. The most reported actions to supplement missing referral information were to ask the patient or relative, examine the body region of concern and check medical records (73%, 70%, 67%, responded often/always, respectively). The actions when confronted with unjustified referrals were reported equally to consult the radiologist, referring clinician and radiographer (69–68% often/always responses). The hindering factors ranked high (agreed/strongly agreed responses) pertained to inadequate information in referral forms (83%), ineffective communication among healthcare professionals (79%), lack of training (70%) and allocated time (61%). Statistically significant associations were observed for a few actions and hindrances with education level, modality of practice and responsibility to screen imaging referrals. Conclusion Radiographers consult colleagues about suspected unjustified referrals. Effective communication pathways, training and time allocation to improve radiographers’ skills to assess referrals may enhance appropriate imaging and delivery of quality patient care. Key Points • Radiographers’ actions of supplementing missing information in radiology referrals facilitate provision of high-quality health services. • Radiographers’ strategy when confronted with inappropriate referrals is to consult radiologists and referring clinicians. • Better inter-professional communication and organisation of tasks can facilitate radiographers’ participation in referral assessment to ensure appropriate imaging. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-08470-z.

Introduction: There is limited research related to the radiographers' role in assessing of radiology referrals to justify imaging. This study investigated radiographers' compliance with guidelines in the assessment of CT and MRI referrals and factors that influenced their performance. Methods: This research was facilitated by the EFRS Research Hub at ECR 2019. Five radiology referral scenarios for CT and/or MRI were distributed to radiographers, as determined by their scope of practice, who volunteered at the Research Hub. A web-based data collection tool was used. The radiographers were required to determine the appropriateness of each referral, highlight any concerns and recommend suitable investigations if applicable. Linear regression analysis was used to determine whether postgraduate qualification, grade/role of the radiographer and use of guidelines influenced the radiographers' performance in assessing the referrals. Results: Participants originated from 24 countries (n ¼ 51 CT, n ¼ 40 MRI), the majority originating from the UK, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Norway and Austria. Responses consistent with guidelines were 58% and 57% for CT and MRI, respectively. Possession of an MSc qualification in CT was a significant factor of influence for a higher consistency with guidelines (p ¼ 0.02) in CT. Employment as a radiographer in a lead professional role and/or educator was a significant factor of influence for a higher consistency with guidelines in MRI (p ¼ 0.01). Conclusion: A total of 58% for CT and 57% for MRI of the radiographers' responses complied with guidelines. Factors such as postgraduate education and leading professional roles are associated with better performance. Implications for practice: Considering qualifications, experience and managerial role is vital before radiographers are delegated task of justifying CT and MR Imaging.