Radiologic Technology最新文献

Purpose: To assess whether first-year radiography students observed differences between what they were taught in didactic and laboratory courses and how technologists perform chest imaging procedures during clinical experiences.

Methods: This study used a mixed-methods approach with a cross-sectional survey, consisting of 11 quantitative and 11 qualitative items, during the fall 2020 semester. The survey asked participants to evaluate survey statements based on their observations of radiographers' behaviors during chest imaging procedures in relation to the 11 American Registry of Radiologic Technologist clinical competency areas. Participants rated their evaluations based on the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with statements regarding radiographers' behaviors using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). For each statement, a follow-up, open-ended question asked participants to provide reasons why they thought technologists did or did not exhibit certain behaviors. Data were analyzed quantitatively with differential statistics and qualitatively by thematically categorizing open-ended responses.

Results: A total of 19 first-year radiography students (N = 19) completed the survey. Most participants somewhat agreed or strongly agreed with 8 out of the 11 competency statements based on their observations of technologists when performing chest imaging procedures: room preparation (73.7%), patient identity verification (89.5%), examination order verification (79%), patient assessment (79%), equipment operation (52.6%), patient management (100%), technique selection (73.6%), and image evaluation (94.7%). Most participants somewhat disagreed, strongly disagreed, or were neutral with 3 out of the 11 categories: patient positioning, radiation safety, and image processing. Qualitatively, participants responded that technologists only provided lead shielding for pediatric patients, were not instructing patients to take 2 inspirations before making an exposure, and were cropping their images electronically before submitting them for diagnoses.

Discussion: Participants reported inconsistencies between what they were taught and what they saw technologists doing during chest imaging procedures related to patient positioning, radiation safety, and imaging processing. Participants' responses stated that these inconsistencies might be because of an increase in technologist responsibilities, patient volumes, and fear of not including relative anatomy on their images.

Conclusion: Participants reported the most disagreement with radiation safety during chest imaging procedures. Although lead shielding for abdominal and pelvic procedures is no longer recommended, shielding patients during chest imaging procedures is still recommended. Radiography programs can educate students that inconsistency between task

Purpose: To provide an overview of the reflective learning cycle, as well as common reflective learning models, as a means of informing future implementation of reflective learning assignments in medical imaging curriculum.

Methods: Journal articles were searched for in Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and ResearchGate, as well as the university's library databases using the keywords reflective learning, Kolb's model of learning, reflective learning practices in health care, and reflective learning in radiography. Out of 19 articles found, 12 articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results: The literature search yielded results in health care education, nursing, medicine, medical imaging and radiography, pharmacy, physical therapy, and occupational therapy.

Discussion: Studies have shown that reflection is an integral aspect of learning and has substantial implications for learners' clinical practice. Reflection is a cognitive process that facilitates learning, assists in the understanding and application of knowledge to clinical situations, and develops new clinical knowledge in student radiographers. When reflective activities, such as journaling, portfolios, and problem-based learning, are scaffolded throughout the curriculum, students develop critical reflection skills that positively affect their clinical practice.

Conclusion: Reflective learning practices can positively affect student learning, clinical decision-making skills, and patient outcomes. When reflective learning activities are incorporated throughout the curriculum, students are more effectively able to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and clinical practice. In addition, the reflective learning process allows learners to examine their clinical experiences while providing context for application and future clinical practice and continued learning.

Background: This case details a 44-year-old man with end-stage ischemic cardiomyopathy with refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT). The patient has a single-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, has had 2 VT ablations, and uses medication to manage his VT. Despite these interventions, he continued to have episodes of VT. The patient underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to help reduce the burden of his VT. The patient received a dose of 25 Gy to his right inferior lateral region of the heart and a dose of 15 Gy to the inferior portion of the heart closer to the stomach. The patient followed up 1 month later and reported that his energy levels improved and that no arrhythmias had occurred since his SBRT treatment.

Discussion: The options for treating end-stage VT are limited. However, a treatment option using SBRT has been introduced to reduce the VT burden in patients. Cardiac SBRT is a noninvasive outpatient procedure that, while still awaiting U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval, reduces arrhythmia episodes and offers favorable short-term benefits for patients who have not responded to traditional treatment modalities.

Conclusion: Cardiac SBRT is a novel treatment for VT in patients where standard treatments have failed. This case study demonstrates that SBRT effectively reduced arrhythmias in a patient with VT. The long-term clinical outcomes are not known, but the opportunity SBRT offers for treatment-refractory patients is favorable and should be considered.

Purpose: To assess the patient gonadal shielding practices of radiologic technologists in the state of California.

Methods: A survey invitation was sent via email to registered radiologic technologists in California to collect data to determine whether there were significant associations between gonadal shielding practices and various categorical variables, including patient sex, patient age, body part, availability of gonadal shielding protocols, availability of gonadal shields, and supervisor encouragement.

Results: There was a significant association between gonadal shielding protocol availability and supervisor encouragement of using gonadal shielding (P = .005) and between gonadal shielding availability and supervisor encouragement of using gonadal shielding (P < .001). Contrary to other studies in the literature, there was a significant difference between patient sex and the likelihood of gonadal shielding use, with participants indicating that they shield girls and women more often than they shield boys and men (P < .001).

Discussion: There was a sex-based difference in the frequency of gonadal shielding usage among the sample in this study. Also, supervisors providing accessible protocols and encouraging gonadal shielding can increase technologists' use of gonadal shielding.

Conclusion: Gonadal shielding is the current Code of Federal Regulations standard, although most professional and scientific organizations support discontinuing shielding during abdominal and pelvic radiography examinations. Shielding of these areas is more likely to occur with the availability of gonadal shielding, supervisory encouragement, protocols mandating shielding, and state regulations.