Back to the list
Congress: ECR25
Poster Number: C-14751
Type: Poster: EPOS Radiographer (scientific)
DOI: 10.26044/ecr2025/C-14751
Authorblock: J-M. Bridson, L. R. Jenkins, A. Tootell, L. Williams, G. Holroyd, E. Holme; Ormskirk/UK
Disclosures:
Julie-Michelle Bridson: Research/Grant Support: Funded by NHS England (formerly Health Education England) UK
Liam Rhys Jenkins: Research/Grant Support: Funded by NHS England (formerly Health Education England) UK
Andrew Tootell: Research/Grant Support: Funded by NHS England (formerly Health Education England) UK
Linda Williams: Research/Grant Support: Funded by NHS England (formerly Health Education England) UK
Gill Holroyd: Research/Grant Support: Funded by NHS England (formerly Health Education England) UK
Elaine Holme: Research/Grant Support: Funded by NHS England (formerly Health Education England) UK
Keywords: Management, Radiographers, Plain radiographic studies, Health policy and practice, Structured reporting, Education and training, Workforce
Conclusion
  • Qualified RRs have been contributing effectively to reporting PFI for decades. However, staffing and financial constraints in NHS affecting ongoing effectiveness:

    • Number qualified RRs is very low/100,000 population; this cannot usefully contribute to reporting output productivty given rising demand for NHS imaging services.
    • Shortage of radigraphers in UK does not provide adequate workforce to upskill as RRs, given they are often required to provide image aquisition. 
    • Lack of adequately trained staff trained in image acqusition exist to allow RR training.
    • Lack of training posts/recurrent funding precludes growth in RRs.
    • Training sufficient numbers of PFI RRs can release radiologists to undertake more complex image reporting tasks and procedures. This requires radiologist support for training and ongoing continuing professional development support.
    • Postgraduate training programmes are expensive. Current costs and limited contribution of PFI RRs to make any useful contribution to total PFI reports is a very inefficient model.
    • Few career progression opportunities; most RRs constrained to AfC band 7, with little opportunity to develop as advanced practitioner in higher AfC bandings.
    • Majority of examination types reported are MSK/CXR, with few AXR. 
    • No consistency for implementation of RR job plan. Expectations/roles/boundaries therefore unspecified posing potential organisational/individual/patient risks.
    • The number reports expected/session was very diverse and outwith the Royal College of Radiologists guidelines [2].
    • Minimum number reports needs to be defined and adopted to ensure adequate caseload/mix to maintain clinical acumen and manage expectations for RRs within and between hospitals.
    • No specific baseline postgraduate qualification is required for RRs reporting PFI.
    • CPD opportunities which are essential to enable maintenance of competence and capability are limited by NHS staffing/funding constraints.
    • Governance of RRs reporting PFI need to be robust and comparable to radiologists.
    • The standards published by the Royal College of Radiologists for reporting practitioners (MSK and CXR) should be utilised by all departments with PFI RRs [5,6].
    • Figure 7 shows recommendations for future practice for RRs reporting PFI examnations.
GALLERY