Assistant radiographer practitioners: Creating capacity or challenging professional boundaries?. Issue 3 (August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Palmer, D.; Snaith, B.; Harris, M.A.
• Is Part Of: Radiography. Volume 24:Issue 3(2018)
• Page Start: 247
• Page End: 251
• Publication Date: 2018-08
• Subjects: Assistant practitioner -- Radiography -- Scope of practice -- Skill mix -- X-ray; Diagnostic imaging -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Diagnostic Imaging -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Imagerie pour le diagnostic -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Cancer -- Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2018.03.001
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1078-8174

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Over the last 2 decades the assistant radiographer practitioner (ARP) role has been introduced into NHS diagnostic imaging departments as a strategy to expand the workforce and create capacity. This skill mix initiative has not been implemented in a standardised way and there is limited knowledge of the current role scope within general radiography (X-Ray). Method: An electronic survey of ARPs working within UK diagnostic imaging departments was conducted. Both open and closed questions sought information regarding basic demographic data (age category; gender; geographic region), scope of practice (patient groups; anatomical regions; imaging outside of the diagnostic imaging department), limitations placed on practice, supervision and additional roles. Results: A total of 108 responses, including 13 trainees, were received. Most sites employ three or less ARPs in general radiography (n = 43/66; 65.2%), although 11 sites have five (range 1–15). The majority undertake imaging of both adults and children (n = 85/108; 78.7%), although limitations on age were described. Their scope of practice covers a broad anatomical range and included some non-ambulant patients. The level of supervision varied with some sites empowering ARPs to check the referral prior to examination (n = 25) or images post acquisition (n = 32) (both n = 20/66; χ 2 = 16.003; 1df; p = 0.000). Conclusion: ARPs are helping to maintain capacity in imaging departments but we suggest there is further scope for expansion. The practice described by the post holders suggests that many are working beyond the scope envisaged by the radiography professional body. Highlights: A survey of UK assistant practitioners in general radiography received 108 responses. Assistant practitioners are contributing to imaging capacity in general radiography. Their scope of practice demonstrates wide variation. They are undertaking activities beyond those advocated by the professional body. Blurring of the radiographer – assistant boundary is evident.