IntroductionThe Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) collect reported incidents for inclusion in the Australian Radiation Incident Register (ARIR), a database of radiation incident reports that occur within Australia. While the information on previous radiation incidents is available, there is little information on the lessons that can be learned from those past incidents to help prevent the same errors reoccurring. The aims of the study were to investigate what radiation incident registers are publicly available in Australia and to utilise the information contained within the ARIR and any other state or territory radiation protection authority registers to make recommendations for radiographers and radiation therapists to prevent future adverse events.MethodsA search was conducted to locate what radiation incident registers within Australia were available to the public. All adverse events from 2003 to 2014 were compiled into a spreadsheet for analysis. An error‐type classification taxonomy was used to classify the adverse events. Conclusions were drawn from the determined causes to make recommendations to change work practices in an attempt to prevent similar adverse events reoccurring.ResultsIncident registers were located from New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia. Radiography represented 76% (243) of the adverse events. A vast majority of the incidents were a failure to comply with time‐out protocols (77%, 248).ConclusionThere are several radiation adverse event registers publicly available to utilise in Australia. All departments need to adopt and strictly adhere to time‐out protocols. This in conjunction with the other recommendations in this article has the potential to dramatically reduce radiation adverse events.

Laws exist in most states of Australia regarding mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse. In all Australian jurisdictions, the legislation stipulates various people or professions are mandated to report suspected cases of child abuse. In some states, medical imaging professionals are included in the groups of prescribed people mandated to report their suspicions of child abuse, but these laws vary greatly in each state.Medical imaging professionals must be familiar with their legal obligations and the protection to the reporter provided by those Acts. Even if not legally obligated to report, medical imaging professions can fulfil their moral obligations with protection provided for voluntary reporting by the various Acts throughout Australia.

IntroductionInternational collaboration is recognised for enhancing the ability to approach complex problems from a variety of perspectives, increasing development of a wider range of research skills and techniques and improving publication and acceptance rates. The aim of this paper is to describe the current status of international collaboration in medical radiation science and compare this to other allied health occupations.MethodsThis study utilised a content analysis approach where co‐authorship of a journal article was used as a proxy for research collaboration and the papers were assigned to countries based on the corporate address given in the by‐line of the publication. A convenience sample method was employed and articles published in the professional medical radiation science journals in the countries represented within our research team – Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA) were sampled. Physiotherapy, speech pathology, occupational therapy and nursing were chosen for comparison.ResultsRates of international collaboration in medical radiation science journals from Australia, the UK and the USA have steadily increased over the 3‐year period sampled. Medical radiation science demonstrated lower average rates of international collaboration than the other allied health occupations sampled. The average rate of international collaboration in nursing was far below that of the allied health occupations sampled. Overall, the UK had the highest average rate of international collaboration, followed by Australia and the USA, the lowest.ConclusionOverall, medical radiation science is lagging in international collaboration in comparison to other allied health fields.

Aim: Previous studies, some dating back several decades, have recommended that the use of plain abdominal radiography should be curbed, particularly with the growth of more accurate imaging modalities. However, evidence from referral data suggests that plain abdominal radiography continues to be a commonly requested examination. The aim of this review was to explore the gap between evidence and practice by re-examining the evidence using a robust methodology, investigating the diagnostic accuracy of plain abdominal radiography. Methods: Studies were identified from electronic databases and reference lists. Eligible studies provided data as to the sensitivity and specificity of plain abdominal radiography for either acute abdominal pain (Group A) or suspected intestinal obstruction (Group B). Version 2 of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies was used to assess the quality of studies and hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curves and coupled forest plots were generated. Results: Four studies evaluated plain abdominal radiography for acute abdominal pain (Group A) and 10 for suspected intestinal obstruction (Group B). Two studies investigated both presentations and were included in both groups. Methodological quality of studies was moderately high, though incorporation bias was a common limitation. Sensitivity for Group A studies ranged from 30 to 46%, with specificity from 75 to 88%. For Group B, the range of sensitivity was 48 to 96% and specificity from 50 to 100%. Conclusion: The results suggest that use of plain abdominal radiography could be substantially reduced, particularly for patients with undifferentiated acute abdominal pain. While some guidelines exist, there is sound argument for clinical decision rules for abdominal imaging to inform evidence-based clinical decision-making and radiology referrals.

No abstract