Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences最新文献

Introduction: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is not routinely evaluated using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in paediatric radiation therapy (RT). This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to HRQoL implementation in paediatric RT clinical practice and requirements for a digital PROM platform, from the perspectives of healthcare professionals.

Method: Exploratory semi-structured interviews were conducted with multidisciplinary clinicians from two hospitals providing care to paediatric RT patients. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, descriptively coded and analysed using content analysis. Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as a theoretical framework for data collection, analysis and interpretation.

Results: Nine interviews were held with nurses (n = 3), radiation therapists (n = 3), radiation oncology registrars (n = 2) and a consultant family therapist. Participants identified digital, clinical and child-friendly features to inform platform development. All participants recognised the proposed digital platform to be of value by generating new information to support patient care. The perceived alignment with clinical workflows, potential to provide staff satisfaction and individual scope to act on PROM results were key facilitators. Clinical time pressures, transient staffing and reluctance for change were identified as potential barriers. Engagement of clinical staff and training in addressing psychosocial concerns were recommended to support clinical actioning of results and foster successful clinical uptake.

Conclusion: This study used CFIR to systematically identify requirements for a digital platform and barriers to routine patient-reported HRQoL collection in the paediatric RT setting. The facilitators and complexities of PROM implementation can inform platform development and future implementation strategies.

This correspondence is in response to the Letter to the Editor “Evaluating Proton Versus Photon Therapy: A Call for Nuanced Decision-Making”. A balanced evidence-based approach that is patient-centred is needed when deciding between proton versus photon radiotherapy.

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 72, Issue 4, December 2025.

This editorial provides insight into value-based healthcare in Australia, including organisations such as New South Wales (NSW) Health, which has a focus on implementing and scaling value-based healthcare. This includes exemplary programmes in applying value-based principles in commissioning medical imaging services and expanding hypofractionation radiation therapy for breast cancer patients across the system. This special issue also showcases research in value-based healthcare and its application in medical radiation sciences in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), computed tomography (CT) and hypofractionated radiation therapy.

Poster Abstracts – Student Conference

Introduction: Radiographer preliminary image evaluation (PIE) is a patient safety mechanism where radiographers provide a written comment describing potential pathology in radiographs they have acquired. This can assist emergency referrers in making a diagnosis when a radiologist's report is unavailable. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of radiographer PIE in interpreting paediatric trauma radiographs in an Australian emergency department.

Methods: A randomised sample of paediatric radiographic examinations (aged 16 years and under) from January 2022 to June 2023 was retrospectively reviewed. The anatomical regions reviewed included the appendicular and axial skeleton, chest and abdomen. The PIE for each examination was compared to the radiologist report to indicate if the radiographer's evaluation was a true negative/positive or false negative/positive value. This was used to calculate mean sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy. Discrepant PIE interpretations were further investigated.

Results: A total of 498 PIEs were reviewed. The overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were 93.3%, 84.3% and 98.1%, respectively. Cases with no participation and those marked as unsure for pathology represented 0.4% and 2.6% of the sample, respectively. The extremities were identified as a region frequently misinterpreted.

Conclusion: Radiographers in this study maintained a high diagnostic accuracy in interpreting paediatric radiographs. PIE may complement the emergency referrer's diagnosis when a radiologist report is unavailable to promote appropriate and timely treatment for paediatric patients in the emergency department. Further research with a larger sample may support targeted training to improve PIE performance in regions frequently misinterpreted.