https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/radopen <p><strong><em>Radiography Open</em></strong> is an open access scientific journal that publishes scientific original articles, review articles, and case studies, within a broad understanding of radiography. In addition, <strong><em>Radiography Open</em></strong> publishes columns that underpin evidence-based practice within radiography.</p> NTNU: Norwegian University of Science and TecNTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology en-US Radiography Open 2387-3345 Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:<br /><br /><ol type="a"><li>Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work after publication simultaneously licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" target="_new">Creative Commons Attribution License</a> that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.</li></ol><br /><ol type="a"><li>Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.</li></ol><br /><ol type="a"><li>Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See <a href="http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html" target="_new">The Effect of Open Access</a>).</li></ol> https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/radopen/article/view/5635 <p><strong>Introduction: </strong>At present there is no national register of the population size and scope of reporting radiographers in England. This makes operational workforce and succession planning for sustainable healthcare services in the National Health Service England (NHSE) difficult, affecting implementing NHSE policies and priorities such as 50% of X-rays reported by reporting radiographers and decreasing reporting Turnaround Times (TATs). This survey aimed to establish the workforce population employed as reporting radiographers in NHSE.</p> <p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online anonymous seven question survey was distributed on social media and at the UK Imaging and Oncology Congress. Participant criteria included NHSE radiology staff (diagnostic radiographer, reporting radiographer, radiology manager, imaging superintendent modality lead, consultant radiologist, etc.) or a student diagnostic radiographer working within an NHSE trust. The survey recorded the participant's NHSE region (North Western, North Eastern and Yorkshire, Midlands, East of England, London, South Eastern and South Western regions), Integrated Care Systems (ICS), NHSE Trust, hospital, the amount of reporting radiographers and trainees employed, the Agenda for Change (AfC) job banding and imaging modality reported (X-ray, CT, MRI, NM, PET, DEXA). The data analysis applied descriptive statistics for estimating patterns and trends in the distrubtion of data (English region, AfC banding and imaging modality).</p> <p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses were received from all seven of the NHSE regions (<em>n</em>=36/43 ICSs). The data demonstrated a larger workforce in the north of England than in the south, with employment at a range of AfC bandings from 5-8. The imaging modalities reported by radiographers in England demonstrated X-ray (<em>n</em>=34), the most reported imaging examination by region, and Nuclear Medicine (<em>n</em>=3) the least, with evidence of clinical reporting for CT (<em>n</em>=20), MRI (<em>n</em>=18), DEXA (<em>n</em>=16), Mammography (<em>n</em>=13) and fluoroscopy (<em>n</em>=12) being completed by radiographers in England.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings for England (<em>n</em>=704 reporters; <em>n</em>=142 trainees) provide an estimate based on the response rate of the current reporting radiographer workforce across the NHSE regions, and their contribution to the skills mix radiology reporting service delivery. It is hoped future surveys will provide ongoing workforce estimates for the diagnostic radiographer reporting workforce in NHSE to support workforce transformation and sustainability plans for the radiography profession and to meet government healthcare targets and priorities.</p> Paul Lockwood Christopher Burton Theresa Shaw Nicholas Woznitza Copyright (c) 2024 Paul Lockwood, Christopher Burton, Theresa Shaw, Nicholas Woznitza http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 2024-02-05 2024-02-05 10 1 1 18 10.7577/radopen.5635 https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/radopen/article/view/5326 <p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Computed Tomography Dose Index volume (CTDI_vol) is a measure of radiation output of the CT scanner and does not represent patient dose. It often underestimates the radiation dose being given to small children and smaller adults and overestimates the dose to larger patients. The use of Size Specific Dose Index (SSDE) helps convert CTDI_vol into more patient size specific radiation dose and is a better measure of estimated patient dose than CTDI_vol.</p> <p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Radiology and Imaging of Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital (TUTH), Maharajgunj, Nepal. CT scans were performed on the Siemens Somaton Definition AS+ 128 slice scanner. During 96 CT examinations of the abdomen and pelvis collected over a period of 4 months, effective diameters were calculated from the AP and Lateral diameters at the mid-liver region. These were used to determine the conversion factors which were then used to convert the CTDI_vol values to SSDE. Obtained SSDE values were compared with the displayed CTDI_vol values.</p> <p><strong>Results: </strong>The average CTDI_vol was found to be 9.42 ± 3.26 mGy and the average SSDE was found to be 13.48 ± 3.53 mGy. Moderate positive correlation (r=+0.52, p&lt;0.001) was found between CTDI_vol and patient weight and low positive correlation (r=+0.17, p=0.08) was found between SSDE and patient weight. Similarly, moderate positive correlation (r=+0.5, p&lt;0.001) was found between CTDI_vol and patient BMI and low positive correlation (r=+0.14, p=0.15) was found between SSDE and patient BMI.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In comparison with SSDE, CTDI_vol seemed to underestimate the patient dose estimate by 30.11%. CTDI_vol values showed dependency with patient weight and BMI, this dependency was significantly reduced when those values were converted into SSDE (i.e. r=+0.52, p&lt;0.001 (CTDI_vol and Patient weight) vs. r=+0.17, p=0.08 (SSDE and Patient weight) and r=+0.5, p&lt;0.001 (CTDI_vol and BMI) vs. r=+0.14, p=0.15 (SSDE and BMI). Thus, providing more concrete evidence to the fact that SSDE values are a more reliable patient dose estimate since it addresses the patient’s size.</p> <p> </p> Sweta Joshi Sharma Paudel Shanta Lall Shrestha Surendra Maharjan Copyright (c) 2024 Sweta Joshi, Sharma Paudel, Shanta Lall Shrestha, Surendra Maharjan http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 2024-06-17 2024-06-17 10 1 19 30 10.7577/radopen.5326