Open AccessComparison between radiographers with sonography education working in remote Australia and radiologists’ interpretation of ultrasound examinations
Author(s) -
Williams Imelda,
Baird Marilyn,
Schneider Michal
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
journal of medical radiation sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.484
H-Index - 18
eISSN - 2051-3909
pISSN - 2051-3895
DOI - 10.1002/jmrs.576
Subject(s) - sonographer , medicine , ultrasound , medical physics , radiology , clinical practice , indigenous , family medicine , ecology , biology
Radiographers working in remote Far North Queensland (FNQ), Australia, need to possess unique skills sets in order to provide culturally safe practice to predominantly Indigenous communities. Due to the lack of onsite radiologists in FNQ, radiographers need to provide preliminary findings to referring practitioners including sonographic findings. The accuracy of such findings has not been evaluated to date. The objective of this study was to compare the level of agreement and recommendations for further investigations of FNQ radiographers to teleradiologists’ reports. As radiographic findings are not recorded or stored as part of routine practice, only sonographic findings were included in the study. Methods Consecutive de‐identified ultrasound cases were extracted between January and March 2019 inclusively by an independent investigator. The researcher scored the ultrasound cases between 1 and 4 according to levels of agreement between sonographic findings and teleradiologists’ reports, and recommendations between radiographers and teleradiologists were also compared using frequency analysis. Results Five‐hundred and thirty‐two ultrasound cases were included for this study. Of those, 517 (97.2%) were in complete agreement and 15 (2.8%) reported minor discrepancies. There were no moderate or major discrepancies suggesting an overall accuracy rate of 100% as the radiographer/sonographer findings were in close agreement with the teleradiologists’ reports. There was complete agreement regarding further clinical recommendations in 453 (85%) cases. The discrepancy in the remaining 15% of cases did not lead to any adverse or changed patient management. Conclusions This study supports existing evidence about the accuracy and timely communication of sonographic findings to radiologists and other health care professionals, in keeping with the Medical Radiation Practice Board of Australia expectations. It is likely that radiographer comments on plain radiographic images are equally as reliable, but this remains to be explored.