BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether there had been a progression or regression in the numbers and scope of practice of reporting radiographers in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the United Kingdom (UK), using data from a previous study conducted by the author in 2019/20 as a comparison.
METHODS: Data was gathered via a survey sent to multiple users and groups of MRI Radiographers in the UK. The survey consisted of a questionnaire, using both numerical and free text answers to enable the responders to elaborate on their scope of practice whilst also allowing numerical data to be easily analysed. The responses were analysed for patterns and comparison was made with the data from the previous survey. The questionnaire was based on three main themes of those in training, those trained and those in practice.
RESULTS: A total of 62 sites had radiographers in training (n =24) or trained (n = 125) in MRI reporting compared to 46 sites in the previous survey. The majority of responders were from England (n = 56/62) with only a few sites in Scotland (n = 4) and Wales (n = 2). There were 24 radiographers in training, a reduction compared to the previous survey and an increase in the number of radiographers trained (n = 80 to n = 125) and in practice (n = 57 to n = 84). Scope of practice had also increased with the addition of MRCPs, orbits and pituitary.
CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides evidence that the number and scope of practice of MRI reporting radiographers within the UK has progressed when compared to a previous survey from 2019/20. The numbers however are still low and there remain significant geographical variations. The continued predominance of single handed practice is a concern and the reasons behind this and the slow expansion of skill mix reporting in this modality needs further investigation.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of the number and scope of practice of the radiographer reporting of MRI examinations in the UK. It also demonstrates that there has been an increase in scope and number of radiographers reporting MRI scans, this will provide evidence and proof of concept for departments looking to initiate or increase this practice.

Worldwide, there is an increasing use of imaging services and a shortage of radiologists. One potential solution to this challenge involves introducing task shifting, where radiographers actively contribute to reporting diagnostic images alongside radiologists. This study explored the purpose and value of reporting radiographers in Norway\'s imaging departments.
This study used a qualitative design with a descriptive approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eleven participants, comprising managers, radiologists, and reporting radiographers, from four hospital trusts in south Norway. The collected data were analysed using inductive content analysis.
The analysis generated three main categories: \"Organisation,\" \"Barriers and facilitators,\" and \"Experienced outcome.\" The study showed that successfully implementing reporting radiographers required careful planning and preparation due to radiologists\' resistance. The radiologists and managers experienced that reporting radiographers contributed to increased service quality and better training of radiographers and resident physicians. Reporting radiographers found the combination of reporting and diagnostic radiography tasks rewarding and challenging simultaneously.
The implementation of reporting radiographers in imaging departments in Norway was described as successful, positively impacting service quality, reporting capacity, and quality development. However, preparation and planning are needed to overcome barriers to task-shifting.
This study shows that with management involvement and careful planning, reporting radiographers contribute to a high-quality imaging service.

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom (UK) government\'s healthcare policy in the early 1990s paved the way adoption of the skills mix development and implementation of diagnostic radiographers\' X-ray reporting service. Current clinical practice within the public UK healthcare system reflects the same pressures of increased demand in patient imaging and limited capacity of the reporting workforce (radiographers and radiologists) as in the 1990s. This study aimed to identify, define and assess the longitudinal macro, meso, and micro barriers and enablers to the implementation of the diagnostic radiographer musculoskeletal X-ray reporting service in the National Healthcare System (NHS) in England.
METHODS: Multiple independent databases were searched, including PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL, and Google Scholar, as well as journal databases (Scopus, Wiley), healthcare databases (NHS Evidence Database; Cochrane Library) and grey literature databases (OpenGrey, GreyNet International, and the British Library EthOS depository) and recorded in a PRISMA flow chart. A combination of keywords, Boolean logic, truncation, parentheses and wildcards with inclusion/exclusion criteria and a time frame of 1995-2022 was applied. The literature was assessed against Joanna Briggs Institute\'s critical appraisal checklists. With meta-aggregation to synthesize each paper, and coded using NVivo, with context grouped into macro, meso, and micro-level sources and categorised into subgroups of enablers and barriers.
RESULTS: The wide and diverse range of data (n = 241 papers) identified barriers and enablers of implementation, which were categorised into measures of macro, meso, and micro levels, and thematic categories of context, culture, environment, and leadership.
CONCLUSIONS: The literature since 1995 has reframed the debates on implementation of the radiographer reporting role and has been instrumental in shaping clinical practice. There has been clear influence upon both meso (professional body) and macro-level (governmental/health service) policies and guidance, that have shaped change at micro-level NHS Trust organisations. There is evidence of a shift in culturally intrenched legacy perspectives within and between different meso-level professional bodies around skills mix acceptance and role boundaries. This has helped shape capacity building of the reporting workforce. All of which have contributed to conceptual understandings of the skills mix workforce within modern radiology services.

Reporting radiographers undertake an important role in healthcare and for the radiographer profession in general. First introduced in the United Kingdom, reporting radiographers are now practicing in several other European countries. Our objective was to investigate the workforce of reporting radiographers across the European Federation of Radiographer Societies (EFRS) community.
A voluntary anonymous 34 item electronic survey was distributed online using social media accounts such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn covering a wide range of topics relating to professional role, advanced practice, education, and seniority. The questionnaire was distributed during a 12-week period in 2022.
A total of 345 individual responses were received from 15 countries with majorities of respondent from United Kingdom (n = 245, 71%) and Denmark (n = 66, 19%). Mean age was 41.9 (S.D 9.8), similar for females, 42.5 (S.D 9.0) and men 40.9 years (S.D 9.7). Most reporting radiographers worked in public hospitals (90%). The vast majority of the respondents (n = 270, n = 94%) authored and signed their own clinical reports while a minority (n = 18, 6%) stated that their reports were checked by radiologists.
The survey highlights the scope of practice of reporting radiographers working in Europe. Reporting is becoming a career path for an increasing number of radiographers across Europe and there is assess to academic education and clinical support.
Reporting radiographers fulfil an important role within the current demands of healthcare. This demand is likely to increase in the future, and therefore it is vital that there is some form of standardisation in the level of education that this group of healthcare professionals receive.

Mobile X-ray unit have previously been widely used within hospitals in general, predominately for imaging patients admitted to intensive care units or for patients who cannot tolerate a visit to the radiology department. It is now possible to have an X-ray examination outside the hospital in nursing homes or to bring the service to frail, vulnerable or disabled patients. A visit to the hospital can be a frightening experience for vulnerable patients living with dementia or other neurological disorder. It can potentially have a long-term impact on the patient\'s recovery or behaviour. This technical note aimed to provide insight into the planning and running of a mobile X-ray unit in a Danish setting.
This technical note draws on the lived experiences of radiographers operating and managing a mobile X-ray service, sharing experiences with the implementation process and the challenges and successes of a mobile X-ray unit.
Successes include that frail patient, especially those with dementia, benefit from mobile X-ray examinations, as they can remain in familiar surroundings during an X-ray procedure. In general, patients experienced an increased quality of life and less need for sedation medication due to anxiety. Also, working within a mobile X-ray unit is meaningful work for radiographers. Challenges included increased physicality of work, the funding required for the mobile unit, planning a communication strategy to the referring general practitioners, and permission from authorities to perform mobile examinations.
We have successfully implemented a mobile radiography unit that provides a better service for vulnerable patients through learning from successes and challenges.
The mobile radiography setup can benefit vulnerable patients and provide meaningful work for the radiographers. However, transportation of mobile radiography equipment outside the hospital includes many considerations and challenges.

BACKGROUND: A number of Norwegian radiographers have attended an advanced programme of education and training in musculoskeletal reporting, some in the UK and some in Norway. The aim of this study was to examine how reporting radiographers, radiologists and managers experienced the education, competence, and role of reporting radiographers in Norway. To our knowledge, the role and function of reporting radiographers in Norway has not yet been explored.
METHODS: The study had a qualitative design and was based on eleven individual interviews of reporting radiographers, radiologists, and managers. The participants represented five different imaging departments from four hospital trusts in Norway. The interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis.
RESULTS: The analysis identified two main categories: \"Education and training\", and \"The reporting radiographer\". The subcategories were: \"Education\", \"Training\", \"Competence\", and \"The new role\". The study found the program to be demanding, challenging, and time-consuming. However, the reporting radiographers described it as motivating because they gained new competence. The competence of reporting radiographers was regarded as adequate. The participants found that reporting radiographers had a unique competence in both image acquisition and reporting, and they were described as a missing link between radiographers and radiologists.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting radiographers are experienced as an asset for the department. Reporting radiographers not only contribute to musculoskeletal imaging reports but are also important for collaboration, training, and professional development in imaging, and in collaborating with orthopedics. This was seen to increase the quality of musculoskeletal imaging.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting radiographers are a valuable resource in image departments, especially in smaller hospitals where the shortage of radiologists is noticeable.

OBJECTIVE: This narrative synthesis of evidence identifies and explores issues that impact upon the expansion or effectiveness of Reporting Radiographers working in all diagnostic modalities within the United Kingdom (UK). The publication focuses on working practices affecting trainees and qualified Reporting Radiographers.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies informed the themes of this article, they were published between 2014 and 2021. Delays to commencement of reporting roles and variance in performance monitoring was common. Lack of formalisation, overly restrictive and out of date scopes of practice were also found. Whilst, staffing shortages contributed to underutilisation. Failure to utilise skills was most prevalent in cross sectional imaging modalities. Considerable variance in practice was also found between centres. Meanwhile, Reporting Radiographer involvement in professional development, education and research is far from universal and often dependant on individuals sacrificing their own time.
CONCLUSIONS: Governance in many centres would benefit from renewal and standardisation, particularly relating to scopes of practice and performance monitoring audits. Measures are also required to encourage compliance with guidance, address staffing issues and reduce variation between centres. Failure to address these issues has the potential to impair collaboration, delay patient care and increase economic inefficiencies whilst negatively impacting satisfaction for service users and staff. Lack of involvement in professional development, education and research suggests Reporting Radiographers are not accomplishing their full potential, educating the next generation of the reporting workforce and driving evidence-based change for further development of the specialism.
CONCLUSIONS: Better use of the existing workforce is essential to increase productivity, value, and security of Reporting Radiographer services, which are essential to improve patient outcomes and efficiency.

OBJECTIVE: This narrative synthesis of evidence identifies and explores issues that impact upon the expansion or effectiveness of Reporting Radiographers working in all diagnostic modalities within the United Kingdom (UK). The publication focuses on accessibility to training for prospective Reporting Radiographers as well as clinical support within and beyond training.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies informed the themes of this article, they were published between 2014 and 2021. Reporting Radiographers often found it difficult find support during training and once qualified, this was usually due to the availability and workload of supervising staff. Although resistance and obstruction were experienced by many. Concerns relating to pay, promotion and interest were expressed by some respondents whilst access to courses and finance were highlighted as areas of variance across the UK.
CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate support of Reporting Radiographers is impairing expansion of the specialism, whilst impacting capability and morale. This increases risk of patient harm, delays to care and inefficiency, it also threatens the sustainability of services. Negative interactions between Reporting Radiographers and Radiologists or managers is disappointing considering development of the specialism; evidence of Reporting Radiographer effectiveness and current collaboration between Royal College of Radiologists and Society of Radiographers. Issues raised in relation to pay/promotion and litigation could be clarified with ease, this should be considered when guidance is updated. Access to finance and courses is a major barrier in some regions of the UK. Scope exists for further exploration of training. England has used grants to facilitate uptake, these may prove to be an important tool in other countries.
CONCLUSIONS: Drivers to increase recruitment should be implemented alongside measures to facilitate accessibility to training and improvements to support infrastructure.

The aim of this study was to determine a baseline assessment of the national picture of MRI reporting radiographers within the United Kingdom.
A questionnaire was utilised using both open and closed questions, the twenty questions were based on four main themes of those in training, those trained, those no longer reporting and post qualification sign off and expectations. The questionnaire was sent out to multiple special interest and MRI specific groups.
Responses were received from 46 trusts (n = 46) between September 2019 and May 2020. The majority of respondents were from English Trusts (n = 40/46). 31 radiographers from 21 different trusts were training in MRI reporting with the majority of those training to report thoraco-lumbar spines and knees. 80 radiographers from 38 trusts had completed training with 77 of those being trained at one south of England University. 57 radiographers from 35 trusts were in practice with the majority of these reporting thoraco-lumbar spines and knees.
This survey provides an insight into the current status of MRI reporting radiographers in the UK. Although courses have been available since 2003, numbers are still low and there are significant geographical and working practice variations. Defined standards of practice and the implementation of a central register would benefit both those in practice and those looking to implement a MRI reporting radiographer service.
This study gives some baseline evidence of the number and scope of practice of MRI reporting radiographers in the UK.

This study investigated the scope of practice of CT head reporting radiographers in the UK, and to compare adherence to professional body standards.
An online questionnaire was utilized applying both multiple-choice and response (closed questions), and qualitative open question free-text responses. The 30 questions covered four key areas of demographics, the scope of practice, referrals, and ongoing competence, as described in professional body national guidance standards. The questionnaire was disseminated (convenience sampling) via Twitter and email to the National CT Head Reporting Special Interest Group. Responses were transcribed and coded; the results applied descriptive statistics to summarise observations of the study sample.
The sample of participant response data analysed was n = 54. Most respondents were from England, with a postgraduate certificate award in clinical reporting, and a mean length of 8.3 years of reporting experience. The accepted referral pathway included a wide range of medical and surgical specialities, including both in and outpatients and acute and chronic pathways. Furthermore, 96.2% of the sample had a scope of practice that authorised referral recommendations to a broad and inclusive group of medical and surgical teams, and if required further or repeat diagnostic imaging. To maintain quality and evidence of ongoing competency, all radiographers were involved in audit cycles.
The data collected confirmed the reporting practice within this sample group aligns to national recommended guidance. The data provided key information on the range and variation of individuals scope of practice within age restrictions of patients, examination types, referral teams, and ongoing competency practices.
This paper details the scope of practice of CT head reporting by radiographers and the contribution made to the healthcare sector.