Objectives: Radiographers are key patient-facing healthcare professionals involved in many aspects of patient care. The working patterns and professional practice of the radiography workforce (RW) has been altered during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on radiography practice in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: An online cross-sectional survey of the UK RW was performed (March 25th to April 26th, 2020). The survey sought information regarding 1. Demographics 2. Impact of the pandemic on professional practice 3. Infection prevention/control and 4. COVID-19 related stress. Data collected was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (v.26). Results: A total of 522 responses were received, comprising n = 412 (78.9%) diagnostic and n = 110 (21.1%) therapeutic RW categories from across the UK. 12.5% (65/522) of the respondents were redeployed. Redeployment did not appear to contribute (p = 0.31) to work-related stress. However, fear of contracting the infection and perceived inadequate personal protective equipment (PPE) were identified as key contributors to stress during the study period. Compared to the therapeutic RW, a significantly higher proportion of the diagnostic RW identified fear of being infected as a major stressor (166/412 (40.3%) vs 30/110 (27.3%), p = 0.01). Conclusion: This survey has demonstrated changes to clinical practice, in particular to working patterns, service delivery and infection prevention and control were key contributors to workplace-related stress during the pandemic. Advances in knowledge: Timely and adequate staff training and availability of PPE as well as psychosocial support during future pandemics would enhance quality patient and staff safety.

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the information needs of radiotherapy patients and their families. To explore influential factors regarding information-seeking behaviours. To identify the preferred formats of information and the optimum time for radiotherapy patients to receive information. To assess the implications for clinical practice in satisfying patient information needs. Method: A Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature database search of literature was undertaken and publications screened for retrieval with 36 qualifying for inclusion in the evaluation. Results: There was inconclusive evidence exploring the impact that patient age, diagnosis, family background, and educational status had on the information-seeking behaviours and preferences of cancer patients. There is an agreement that there are positive and negative benefits of using different formats of information: verbal, written, virtual, and so on, and ultimately healthcare providers must utilise a combination of information formats to satisfy the information needs and preferences of individual patients. Inconsistent data were found on the optimum time to deliver cancer information to patients and professionals, and therapeutic radiographers should not assume that their information priorities are the same as those of their patients—every patient has unique and individually specific information needs. Conclusion: The information needs of patients and families are dependent on individual circumstances, and priorities have a tendency to change during the cancer management journey, presenting huge challenges for therapeutic radiographers who are required to regularly reassess and satisfy the varying needs and preferences. More research is needed within the area of information needs and preferences for cancer patients receiving radiotherapy.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundRadiotherapy clinical trials are at the forefront of modern-day prostate cancer patient management. Patients are reviewed during treatment by clinical oncologists or competent on-treatment review radiographers to minimise treatment toxicities. Clinical Research Radiographers (CRRs) routinely monitor and gather research data from patients participating in clinical trials.PurposeThe aim of this article is to evaluate the effectiveness of the CRR undertaking the on-treatment review of clinical trial patients.MethodAn experienced CRR within the Northern Ireland Cancer Trials Network was supervised by a clinical oncologist to undertake the role of the on-treatment review of patients receiving radiotherapy for prostate cancer. The CRR explored published literature and compiled this written evaluation as part of their advanced practice learning.ResultsThe supervising clinical oncologist verified, following the planned period of supervised practice and academic study, that the CRR was competent to fulfil the role. Evidence of the beneficial synergistic impact of co-joining the roles was experienced at first hand during the undertaking of supervised practice.ConclusionCo-joining the roles and responsibilities of the CRR and the on-treatment review radiographer enhanced the quality of care offered to the patients participating in clinical trials.