IRMER regulations: compliance rate of radiograph reporting by non-radiology clinicians

• Published in: Clinical radiology 2010-12, Vol.65 (12), p.984-988
• Main Authors: Kiu, A, Bano, F, Barnes, R, Khan, S.H.M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Clinical Competence - legislation & jurisprudence; Clinical Competence - standards; Documentation - standards; Documentation - statistics & numerical data; Health participants; Health Planning Guidelines; Humans; Medical sciences; Orthognathic Surgery - statistics & numerical data; Orthopedics - statistics & numerical data; Prospective Studies; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Radiation Dosage; Radiology; Radiology - legislation & jurisprudence; Radiology - methods; Radiology - standards; Rheumatology - statistics & numerical data; Thoracic Surgery - statistics & numerical data; United Kingdom
• ISSN: 0009-9260; 1365-229X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2010.05.006

Aim To assess compliance with regulation 7(8) of Ionizing Radiation Medical Exposure Regulations (IRMER) 2000 legislation amongst non-radiologists reporting radiographs in a large district general hospital. Materials and methods A prospective review of 100 consecutive radiography request cards from five different departments undertaking their specialty radiograph reporting were collected over 4 weeks. The requests were then traced to their respective case notes to assess documentation of radiographs. The five departments included chest, maxillo-facial, rheumatology, orthopaedics, and inpatients. Twenty-two case notes were gathered from chest clinics, 21 from maxillo-facial, 15 from rheumatology, 23 from orthopaedics fracture clinics, and 19 were taken from inpatients. Results Only 53% of radiographs undertaken by non-radiologists had a documented report. The specialty most compliant with IRMER was orthopaedics 17/23 (74%) and the specialty least compliant was maxilla-facial 8/21 (38%). Of the documented radiographs, the consultant grade was the largest group of doctors [36% (19/53)] that undertook documentation, and for the undocumented radiographs, they were also the largest group of clinicians that did not document radiographs [77% (36/47)]. All radiographs that were documented in the notes also had documented interpretation of the radiograph. Conclusion Only 53% of plain radiographs were documented and reported by non-radiology clinicians even though IRMER legislation applies to all clinicians undertaking radiograph interpretation. All clinicians undertaking interpretation of radiographs should be made aware of this legislation and the responsibility to document their findings.