Baseline figures for Irish CT DRLs are provided on the most frequently performed CT examinations. The variations in dose between CT departments as well as between identical scanners suggest a large potential for optimisation of examinations.

Introduction Simulation forms a key element of undergraduate Radiography education as it enables students to develop their clinical skills in a safe environment. In this study, an immersive three-dimensional (3D) virtual radiography simulation tool was piloted in an undergraduate Radiography curriculum and user feedback retrieved. Methods The 3D virtual simulation tool by Virtual Medical Coaching Ltd was introduced to first year radiography students (n = 105). This technology guided students through a comprehensive process of learning anatomy, radiographic positioning and pathology. Students then X-rayed a virtual patient in the VR suite using HTC Vive Pro™ headsets and hand controllers. Instant feedback was provided. An online survey was later disseminated to students to gather user feedback. Thematic and descriptive statistical analyses were applied. Results A response rate of 79% (n = 83) was achieved. Most respondents (58%) reported enjoying VR simulation, whilst some felt indifferent towards it (27%). Ninety-four percent would recommend this tool to other students. The mean length of time it took for students to feel comfortable using the technology was 60 min (10–240 min). Most respondents (58%) desired more VR access. Students attributed enhanced confidence in the areas of beam collimation (75%), anatomical marker placement (63%), centring of the X-ray tube (64%) and exposure parameter selection (56%) to their VR practice. Many students (55%) advocated the use of VR in formative or low stakes assessments. Issues flagged included technical glitches, inability to palpate patient and lack of constructive feedback. Conclusion Student feedback indicates that 3D virtual radiography simulation is a valuable pedagogical tool in radiography education Implications for practice 3D immersive VR simulation is perceived by radiography students to be a valuable learning resource. VR needs to be strategically implemented into curricula to maximise its benefits.

Introduction To investigate student clinical placement concerns and opinions, during the initial COVID-19 pandemic outbreak and to inform educational institution support planning. Methods Between mid-June to mid-July 2020, educational institutions from 12 countries were invited to participate in an online survey designed to gain student radiographer opinion from a wide geographical spread and countries with varying levels of COVID-19 cases. Results 1277 respondents participated, of these 592 had completed clinical placements during January to June 2020. Accommodation and cohabiting risks were identified as challenging, as was isolation from family, travel to clinical placements, and to a lesser extent childcare. Students stated they had been affected by the feeling of isolation and concerns about the virus whilst on placement. Overall 35.4% of all respondents were ‘Not at all worried’ about being a radiographer, however, 64.6% expressed varying levels of concern and individual domestic or health situations significantly impacted responses (p ≤ 0.05). Year 4 students and recent graduates were significantly more likely to be ‘Not worried at all’ compared to Year 2 and 3 students (p ≤ 0.05). The need for improved communication regarding clinical placements scheduling was identified as almost 50% of students on clinical placements between January to June 2020 identified the completion of assessments as challenging. Furthermore, only 66% of respondents with COVID-19 imaging experience stated being confident with personal protective equipment (PPE) use. Conclusion Student radiographers identified key challenges which require consideration to ensure appropriate measures are in place to support their ongoing needs. Importantly PPE training is required before placement regardless of prior COVID-19 imaging experience. Implications for practice As the next academic year commences, the study findings identify important matters to be considered by education institutions with responsibility for Radiography training and as students commence clinical placements during the on-going global COVID-19 pandemic.

Purpose To investigate the development of chest radiograph interpretation skill through medical training by measuring both diagnostic accuracy and eye movements during visual search. Materials and Methods An institutional exemption from full ethical review was granted for the study. Five consultant radiologists were deemed the reference expert group, and four radiology registrars, five senior house officers (SHOs), and six interns formed four clinician groups. Participants were shown 30 chest radiographs, 14 of which had a pneumothorax, and were asked to give their level of confidence as to whether a pneumothorax was present. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was carried out on diagnostic decisions. Eye movements were recorded with a Tobii TX300 (Tobii Technology, Stockholm, Sweden) eye tracker. Four eye-tracking metrics were analyzed. Variables were compared to identify any differences between groups. All data were compared by using the Friedman nonparametric method. Results The average area under the ROC curve for the groups increased with experience (0.947 for consultants, 0.792 for registrars, 0.693 for SHOs, and 0.659 for interns; P = .009). A significant difference in diagnostic accuracy was found between consultants and registrars (P = .046). All four eye-tracking metrics decreased with experience, and there were significant differences between registrars and SHOs. Total reading time decreased with experience; it was significantly lower for registrars compared with SHOs (P = .046) and for SHOs compared with interns (P = .025). Conclusion Chest radiograph interpretation skill increased with experience, both in terms of diagnostic accuracy and visual search. The observed level of experience at which there was a significant difference was higher for diagnostic accuracy than for eye-tracking metrics. (©) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

No abstract