Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences最新文献

Introduction: Facilitated Group Supervision (FGS) involves a group of professionals meeting under the guidance of a supervisor to discuss workplace challenges and promote reflective practice. Previous supervision styles have been trialled for radiation therapists (RTs) in New Zealand with mostly successful results. This pilot study aimed to explore how RTs perceived FGS and compare this with their experiences of previous supervision models.

Methods: This mixed-methods pilot study was conducted at the Wellington Blood and Cancer Centre with seven RTs. Participants met in two groups every four weeks for six months with an independent allied health-trained facilitator. Afterwards, they completed a QUALTRICS questionnaire, including the Clinical Supervision Evaluation Questionnaire, which is 14 Likert scale statements, assessing group process, purpose, and impact. Open-ended questions gathered qualitative data.

Results: All seven radiation therapists completed the questionnaire, with both qualitative and quantitative results indicating highly positive feedback regarding FGS. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data revealed that participants developed valuable insights and coping strategies, felt the FGS environment enhanced safety and reflection, and found that discussing shared experiences reduced stress. The RTs also preferred FGS to their previous experiences of supervision.

Conclusion: The findings showed a positive perception of FGS among all participating RTs, especially experienced RTs who benefitted from the structure and process. Participants reported gaining valuable insights from both the facilitator and peers, which enhanced their skills and helped address clinical challenges. All participants expressed interest in continuing with FGS, agreed that FGS could benefit all RT professionals, and identified it as their preferred method of supervision.

This editorial highlights the central role of radiographers in leading AI-driven radiographic image-quality assessment. It outlines how AI can enhance real-time feedback, support consistency, and strengthen safe, patient-centered imaging practice.

Introduction: Radiation protection for operators performing coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is important, with the occupational risks being increasingly recognised. The ceiling-suspended lead acrylic shield is the most commonly used piece of radiation shielding equipment, with different models available. This study sought to measure the impact of shield size on operator dose (OD) in the clinical environment, with two readily available models.

Methods: Two identical cardiac catheterisation laboratories (cath labs) were used in this single centre study. Fluoroscopy time (FT) and kerma area product (KAP) measured procedural radiation exposure. Identical lower body shields were used in both rooms. The ceiling-suspended lead acrylic shield was different in each room, with one being 35% larger and also having lead rubber pleats along the lower edge. OD was measured with a real-time dosimeter (Raysafe i3) at the end of each procedure.

Results: FT and KAP were not significantly different between the two cath labs for 1021 CA and 441 PCI procedures respectively. OD for CA procedures was 9 μSv in cath lab 1 (large shield) and 12 μSv in cath lab 2 (standard shield) (p < 0.001). For PCI procedures, the operator dose was 21 μSv in cath lab 1 (large shield) and 29 μSv in cath lab 2 (standard shield) (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: In this study, with identical cath labs, and similar procedural dose and fluoroscopy times, OD was up to 43% lower with a larger lead acrylic shield when compared to a standard lead acrylic shield.

Introduction: Radiographic and nuclear medicine (NM) examinations utilizing pharmaceutical administration including contrast media (CM) and radiopharmaceuticals, have become essential for diagnosing a variety of diseases but may increase infection risks if infection prevention and control (IPC) are inadequately followed. This study investigates IPC knowledge and education among radiographers and NM technologists regarding pharmaceutical administration in medical imaging settings.

Methods: A cross-sectional online questionnaire was administered to newly graduated radiographers and NM technologists in Australia. The survey assessed demographics, IPC knowledge, and perceived effectiveness of IPC training resources in the context of pharmaceutical administration including CM and radiopharmaceuticals. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, ANOVA, and content analysis.

Results: Forty-five participants, mostly with bachelor's degrees and 4-5 years of experience, demonstrated high knowledge scores, with 87% scoring 9 or above. Theoretical training was rated as the most helpful IPC resource in university education. Challenges included limited practical opportunities at university, inconsistent supervision, and environmental factors affecting IPC compliance. Many participants reported gaps between university training and workplace practice, citing a need for more practical experience and targeted IPC education.

Conclusions: The findings highlight critical gaps in IPC training for medical imaging professionals, particularly concerning the handling of CM in CT imaging. Strengthening IPC education through targeted, hands-on training and regular refresher courses is essential to improve compliance and safeguard both healthcare workers and patients. Addressing these educational gaps is vital for ensuring that medical imaging professionals are adequately prepared to reduce infection transmission risks in clinical settings.

Introduction: The skill of interpreting medical imaging request and contrast consent forms is integral to student learning and assessing clinical preparedness for practice. This study sought to develop standardised Medical Imaging Suite (MIS) forms using publicly available data on these types of medical documentation. The standardised MIS forms can be integrated into the diagnostic radiography curriculum for undergraduate and postgraduate students and embedded into practical classes, tutorials, simulations and objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) to better prepare students for clinical documentation tasks and enhance the student learning experience.

Methods: Open-source medical imaging request forms (n = 30) and contrast consent forms (n = 6) were collected from various radiology providers. The key field components of these forms were analysed using qualitative content analysis to identify essential elements and inform the development of standardised MIS forms.

Results: The forms were sourced from 25 distinct medical imaging providers. Recurring key fields, such as patient details, examination type, clinical history and referrer information, were identified and incorporated into the MIS form templates. This analysis revealed consistent core elements across providers, informing the structure and content of two educational tools. Pregnancy checks were included in only seven request forms and all six contrast consent forms. All contrast consent forms provided background on contrast media injection and risks and checked for renal conditions and diabetes. Other common conditions included asthma (n = 5), thyroid disease (n = 4) and cardiac issues (n = 3).

Conclusion: Standardised MIS forms, modelled on real-world radiology documentation, provide a structured and authentic learning resource within radiography education. Their implementation supports the development of student competencies in communication, documentation and clinical reasoning, while also highlighting the potential for wider adoption across institutions seeking consistent documentation practices. This, in turn, better prepares students for professional practice.

Introduction: Image reject analysis is a critical quality assurance (QA) tool in diagnostic imaging, helping to minimise unnecessary radiation exposure and improve imaging efficiency. This study evaluates image rejection patterns in a computed radiography (CR) system at a major tertiary teaching hospital in Ghana, identifying key sources of errors and their implications for radiology practice.

Methods: A retrospective review of radiographic images acquired between April and June 2023 was conducted. Images, including those flagged as rejects were retrieved from the CR system and analysed for rejection rates, trends by anatomical region, and key error sources.

Results: Of the 5889 images reviewed, 974 were rejected, resulting in an overall rejection rate of 16.5%. Rejection rates varied considerably across anatomical regions. High rejection rates were observed in skull/sinus (34.9%, n = 90/258), pelvic (29.9%, n = 88/294) and abdomen (26.9%, n = 84/312) examinations. Low rejects were recorded for ankle (1.8%, n = 2/110), humerus (2.4%, n = 2/82), forearm (6.7%, n = 6/90), elbow (9.7%, n = 6/62), and lower leg (7.5%, n = 16/214). Across all examinations, the three leading causes of image rejection were anatomical cut-off (40.5%, n = 394), positioning errors (27.5%, n = 268), and beam centering errors (18.5%, n = 180). Less frequent causes included exposure-related issues (6.6%, n = 64), patient movement (2.9%, n = 28), and artefacts or ghosting (4.1%, n = 40).

Conclusion: This study reinforces the role of image reject analysis as a valuable QA measure in CR systems. The high rejection rates observed highlight the need for targeted interventions in positioning, workflow optimization, and radiographer training, particularly in resource-constrained settings to enhance diagnostic quality and patient safety.

Introduction: Skeletal surveys are a series of X-ray images used to identify bone injuries in suspected cases of non-accidental injury (NAI). This study evaluates effective radiation doses and associated risks of radiation exposure from skeletal surveys that were performed on children under 5 years of age at a tertiary paediatric hospital in Australia.

Methods: Radiographic exposure records were retrospectively analysed for 362 initial and follow-up skeletal surveys conducted between 2018 and 2023 for suspected physical abuse. Effective doses and organ absorbed doses were calculated using PCXMC software against background equivalent radiation times (BERT) in Australia. Nominal risks of radiation-induced cancer induction and fatality were estimated using Biologic Effects of Ionising Radiation (BEIR) VII risk coefficients.

Results: The mean effective dose was 0.24 mSv for initial examinations and 0.18 mSv for follow-up examinations, equivalent to 52 and 38 days of background radiation exposure, respectively. The averaged nominal risks associated with an initial skeletal survey are 9.3 in 10,000 for cancer induction, and 3.1 in 10,000 for fatal cancer. Variability of radiation effective dose is demonstrated, with an interquartile range of 0.17-0.30 mSv and an overall range of 0.04-0.76 mSv for initial skeletal surveys.

Conclusion: Radiation doses for initial and follow-up skeletal surveys performed for suspected NAI were determined from a large set of examinations. Several radiation risk metrics have been presented to assist healthcare professionals and caregivers in understanding the associated risks of radiation exposure.

Introduction: Spinal dysraphism describes a spectrum of congenital anomalies pertaining to the spine and spinal cord. Ultrasound is the preferred imaging modality for diagnosing dysraphism in low-risk neonates due to its cost-effectiveness and availability. Recent research demonstrates a low incidence of dysraphism in infants with an isolated sacral dimple and associated cutaneous stigmata (e.g., hairy tuft, haemangioma). We sought to determine the number of neonates referred for investigation of a simple sacral dimple, and the proportion found to have dysraphism.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of the radiology information system was performed in a quaternary Australian children's hospital. Children undergoing spinal ultrasound from January 2016 to November 2024 were included. Patients over 90 days of age, and with indications other than simple sacral dimple were excluded.

Results: There were 448 spinal ultrasound examinations reviewed; of these, 195 (43.5%) were for a simple sacral dimple. Mean age at scan was 33 days (range 2-90 days, sd = 24 days), 88 (45.1%) were female. Only two (1.0%) were diagnosed with dysraphism; both were found to have tethered cords. Both patients were subsequently diagnosed with concomitant anomalies (cardiac, and a Dandy Walker Malformation).

Conclusion: Our findings support literature suggesting ultrasound screening for neonates with a simple sacral dimple has a very low diagnostic yield.

The patient setup using the surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) system differs from conventional surface marker procedures. Owing to the abundance of three-dimensional information, there may be operator variability in where to focus during the patient setup. This study aimed to clarify the differences between expert and novice operators in SGRT positioning for head and neck cases by tracking their eye movements, thereby providing data for developing efficient patient setup procedures. Six radiation therapists set up a simulated patient on the SGRT system while recording eye movements on the screen using the QG-PLUS eye-tracking system. The positioning time and number of gaze fixations on the screen were analysed, and the relationship between years of experience with SGRT, positioning time and number of gaze fixations was evaluated. No significant correlation was found between SGRT experience and positioning time (r = -0.67, p = 0.15). However, more experienced radiation therapists exhibited fewer gaze fixations per positioning session (r = -0.81, p < 0.05), indicating that they efficiently identified key positioning points. Additionally, experienced radiation therapists focused more intently on a specific screen during the latter half of positioning, suggesting a refined approach for final patient alignment verification. More experienced radiation therapists showed fewer gaze fixations and demonstrated increased attention to a specific screen during the latter half of the patient setup process, suggesting that eye-tracking technology may provide useful data for standardising patient setup procedures in SGRT patient setups.

Maximise your continuing professional development (CPD) by reading the following selected article and answering the five questions. Please remember to self-claim your CPD and retain your supporting evidence. Answers will be available via the QR code and published in JMRS—Volume 73, Issue 4, December 2026.