The objective of this study was to determine the level of the aortic bifurcation in relation to the lumbar spine by MRI and the effect of lumbosacral anomalies on the aortic bifurcation. A prospective study of 441 patients was performed. Sagittal MR images of the entire spine were obtained along with the standard protocol for imaging of the lumbar spine. The vertebrae were counted caudally from C2 instead of cranially from the presumed L5 vertebra. The aortic bifurcation in relation to the lumbar vertebrae was determined. The aorta bifurcated at the L4 vertebral body in 67% of cases. In patients with sacralization of L5 the aortic bifurcation was at the L3 vertebral body in 59%. In those patients with lumbarization of S1 the aorta bifurcated at the level of the L4 vertebral body in 40% and at the L4/5 disc space in 33%. There was no demographic variation of the aortic bifurcation in relation to age or sex. The aorta bifurcated at L4 in two-thirds of cases and was variably located in the remaining third. The stability of this as a landmark is disturbed by the significant high incidence of lumbosacral transitional segments.

IntroductionDiagnostic capacity and time to diagnosis are frequently identified as a barrier to improving cancer patient outcomes. Maximising the contribution of the medical imaging workforce, including reporting radiographers, is one way to improve service delivery.MethodsAn efficient and effective centralised model of workplace training support was designed for a cohort of trainee chest X‐ray (CXR) reporting radiographers. A comprehensive schedule of tutorials was planned and aligned with the curriculum of a post‐graduate certificate in CXR reporting. Trainees were supported via a hub and spoke model (centralised training model), with the majority of education provided by a core group of experienced CXR reporting radiographers. Trainee and departmental feedback on the model was obtained using an online survey.ResultsFourteen trainees were recruited from eight National Health Service Trusts across London. Significant efficiencies of scale were possible with centralised support (48 h) compared to traditional workplace support (348 h). Trainee and manager feedback overall was positive. Trainees and managers both reported good trainee support, translation of learning to practice and increased confidence. Logistics, including trainee travel and release, were identified as areas for improvement.ConclusionCentralised workplace training support is an effective and efficient method to create sustainable diagnostic capacity and support improvements in the lung cancer pathway.

Introduction: Peer review is frequently incorporated within radiographer reporting services. The aim of this study is to establish peer review systems used for radiograph reports provided by reporting radiographers in London. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey of NHS diagnostic imaging departments was performed. Reporting radiographer demographics (number, frequency of reporting, scope of practice) and systems used to provide peer review of radiograph reports (review frequency, case selection, volume, outcome measure, practitioner performing the review) were collected. Results: Thirteen eligible responses were received (61.9% response rate). Variability was found between Trusts in the number of reporting radiographers, frequency of reporting sessions and scope of practice. Most Trusts (9 of 13, 69.2%) have active peer review systems for radiographer reporting. All peer review systems use random case selection, most often performed on a monthly basis. Both a fixed number or a percentage of cases reported were used, with true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative the most frequent outcome measure. Of the 12 Trusts that have or are planning a peer system, all currently or plan to use reporting radiographers to conduct the review, with five (41.2%) also using consultant radiologists. Conclusion: Peer review of radiographer reporting is common in London NHS Trusts although there is variation in the methods used. Implications for practice: Radiographer reports frequently undergo peer review. Standardisation of reporting radiographer peer review systems should be considered, and a standardised systematic peer review system has been proposed.