Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · 2026
Utilising research radiographers to address imaging "bottlenecks" to improve research delivery: A case study from the NIHR Regional Research Delivery Network South East (RRDN).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Clarke Justin A, Taylor Stuart, Pegg Claire, Marriott Cheryl, Piercy Charles, Welch Sophie, Crawshaw James W, Khalifa Asimah
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Research radiographers are increasingly embedded within NIHR Regional Research Delivery Networks (RRDNs) to mitigate imaging-related bottlenecks that delay study activation and delivery. Their involvement supports imaging feasibility assessments, standardised reporting, and research-specific workflow oversight. This case study evaluates the impact of a diagnostic research radiographer within the NIHR RRDN South East, at a District General Hospital, focusing on feasibility timelines, RECIST 1.1 reporting quality, and CT trial referral management.
METHODS: A retrospective evaluation used data from QI projects, PACS/CRIS systems, and the local research database. Three domains were reviewed: (1) radiology feasibility assessment, (2) RECIST 1.1 reporting, and (3) vetting and protocolling of trial CT examinations. Improvements were implemented through iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. Pre- and post-intervention data were compared to assess changes in feasibility duration and RECIST error rates.
RESULTS: Radiographer involvement substantially reduced feasibility timelines. Studies without radiographer input (n = 11) required a mean of 49.3 days (SD ±42.7), compared with 15.1 days (SD ±14.3) for radiographer-supported studies (n =13). Introduction of a CRIS-PACS interconnectivity system enabling automatic retrieval of prior imaging reduced RECIST comparison errors from 22.4% to 7.4%. A standardised CT trial ordering and vetting pathway improved referral accuracy and enabled consistent monitoring of trial imaging activity.
CONCLUSION: Embedding a diagnostic research radiographer within research delivery improves radiology-related processes, shortens capacity and capability confirmation times, enhances RECIST 1.1 accuracy, and streamlines CT trial workflow management.
METHODS: A retrospective evaluation used data from QI projects, PACS/CRIS systems, and the local research database. Three domains were reviewed: (1) radiology feasibility assessment, (2) RECIST 1.1 reporting, and (3) vetting and protocolling of trial CT examinations. Improvements were implemented through iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. Pre- and post-intervention data were compared to assess changes in feasibility duration and RECIST error rates.
RESULTS: Radiographer involvement substantially reduced feasibility timelines. Studies without radiographer input (n = 11) required a mean of 49.3 days (SD ±42.7), compared with 15.1 days (SD ±14.3) for radiographer-supported studies (n =13). Introduction of a CRIS-PACS interconnectivity system enabling automatic retrieval of prior imaging reduced RECIST comparison errors from 22.4% to 7.4%. A standardised CT trial ordering and vetting pathway improved referral accuracy and enabled consistent monitoring of trial imaging activity.
CONCLUSION: Embedding a diagnostic research radiographer within research delivery improves radiology-related processes, shortens capacity and capability confirmation times, enhances RECIST 1.1 accuracy, and streamlines CT trial workflow management.