Radiology Department, Homerton University Hospital, UK; School of Allied and Public Health Professions, Canterbury Christ Church University, UK; North Central and East London Cancer Alliance, UK; Health Education England, London, UK.
North Central and East London Cancer Alliance, UK; Radiology Department, University College London Hospitals, UK.
Radiography (Lond). 2021 Feb;27(1):173-177. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2020.07.014. Epub 2020 Aug 6.
Peer review is frequently incorporated within radiographer reporting services. The aim of this study is to establish peer review systems used for radiograph reports provided by reporting radiographers in London.
An online cross-sectional survey of NHS diagnostic imaging departments was performed. Reporting radiographer demographics (number, frequency of reporting, scope of practice) and systems used to provide peer review of radiograph reports (review frequency, case selection, volume, outcome measure, practitioner performing the review) were collected.
Thirteen eligible responses were received (61.9% response rate). Variability was found between Trusts in the number of reporting radiographers, frequency of reporting sessions and scope of practice. Most Trusts (9 of 13, 69.2%) have active peer review systems for radiographer reporting. All peer review systems use random case selection, most often performed on a monthly basis. Both a fixed number or a percentage of cases reported were used, with true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative the most frequent outcome measure. Of the 12 Trusts that have or are planning a peer system, all currently or plan to use reporting radiographers to conduct the review, with five (41.2%) also using consultant radiologists.
Peer review of radiographer reporting is common in London NHS Trusts although there is variation in the methods used.
Radiographer reports frequently undergo peer review. Standardisation of reporting radiographer peer review systems should be considered, and a standardised systematic peer review system has been proposed.
同行评审经常被纳入放射技师报告服务中。本研究旨在确定伦敦放射技师报告中使用的同行评审系统。
对英国国民保健署（NHS）诊断成像部门进行了在线横断面调查。收集了报告放射技师的人口统计学数据（人数、报告频率、实践范围）以及用于对放射报告进行同行评审的系统（评审频率、病例选择、数量、衡量标准、进行评审的从业者）。
共收到 13 份符合条件的回复（61.9%的回复率）。各信托基金之间在报告放射技师人数、报告会议频率和实践范围方面存在差异。大多数信托基金（13 家中的 9 家，69.2%）有放射技师报告的活跃同行评审系统。所有的同行评审系统都采用随机病例选择，最常见的是每月进行一次。使用的病例数量既有固定的，也有百分比的，最常用的衡量标准是真阳性、真阴性、假阳性和假阴性。在 12 家有或正在计划建立同行系统的信托基金中，所有目前或计划使用报告放射技师进行评审，其中 5 家（41.2%）还使用顾问放射科医生。
伦敦 NHS 信托基金中普遍对放射技师报告进行同行评审，但使用的方法存在差异。
放射技师的报告经常接受同行评审。应考虑对报告放射技师同行评审系统进行标准化，并且已经提出了一种标准化的系统同行评审系统。
