ArticlePloS one2023
Radiographers' perceptions on the quality of managing general radiographic paediatric examinations through the use of a reflective tool.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPaediatric patients are a vulnerable population that require additional care by healthcare professionals. Quality managing these examinations ensures that effective and quality care is provided to individual patients, whilst encouraging consistency within the medical imaging department. This study explored radiographers' perspectives on quality management strategies of general radiographic paediatric examinations using a paediatric imaging reflective checklist.
methodsA quantitative descriptive research design with qualitative questions was used through a purposive sampling method from both public and private Australian diagnostic imaging qualified radiographers who had experience in paediatric imaging examinations. The paediatric imaging service reflective tool consisted of 65 items in total. Data analysis entailed Microsoft Excel version 16.16.6 and Jamovi version 2.3.21 for the closed-ended questions and for the open-ended responses a thematic analysis.
resultsThe participation rate was 13.2% and the most significant findings were: lead shielding was still being used at their organisation, despite recent recommendations to suspend its use; access to paediatric patient related information resources is limited; there was no involvement of families and communities regarding policy development or quality improvement measures as advocated in literature; and there was a need for enhanced specialised paediatric education, training and protocols.
conclusionUsing the paediatric patient-centred imaging reflective checklist, radiographers had an opportunity to identify quality improvement indicators as well as issues that could further enhance best practice principles. Further studies could inform on the validity of this reflective tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.