Talk:Radiographer

United Kingdom

I have changed some minor details in the UK section. Unless things have changed in the past few years you don't need honours to practice as a radiographer. As I understand it a "university hospital" is a teaching hospital, i.e. one where doctors are trained. Radiographers often are on placements at district generals, and other sites as specialist placements.

Quality

It's a very good article. --Vookie101 00:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Salary?

I'm a Radiologic Technologist and I make 60,000 dollars a year. Those salaries seem old to me.

It completely depends on where and who you work for. This is average public hospital salary, especially for people right out of school, in the United States. I don't think salary should be listed on Wikipedia as it varies so much around the world.Gaviidae 15:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a radiographer in California--I finished school recently, and I earn more than this range as well. Additionally, the article's information about license requirements for other imaging modalities is out of date. There are indeed sonographers and MRI techs who are not also rad techs. Also, one does not need a CT license to operate CT machines--the basic ARRT rad tech license is sufficient.

Doing some quick web search, you can find all sorts of quotes for radiologic technicians. US Dept. of Labor has a modestly higher outlook on average wages than quoted on this page. I'm looking into college soon myself and am considering aiming for a position such as this, so I was a little disturbed to see that somewhat low salary quote. But I agree with Gaviidae, it probably shouldn't be quoted, if only because I don't see salary quotes for other "job descriptions" on wikipedia. 71.113.30.183 17:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, radiographers or radiological technologists are not technicians. Technicians are similar to practical nurses who are usually supervised by and assist the registered nurses, and in this case by the radiography technologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.77.145 (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the salary figure for the UK radiographers is correct because I remember seeing the agreement of the radiographers in the UK (08 probably). 50,000-70,000 pounds/year is for managers (or other administration personnel) in radiography. Although it's true that these positions are filled with radiographers but they should not be considered as practising radiographers.99.226.205.103 (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

For U.K. radiographer salaries - you should look at Agenda for Change - it's the common pay scale for all working in the National Health System in the U.K (with a few exceptions). As with any job - alot depends upon experience, modality and luck with what point you are placed on within an banding.Orionsbelter ~~

Expanded

I've expanded the article. I put the other modalities in a separate paragraph, as a rad tech can't just go do ultrasound etc. There's still much more that can go in this article, esp need an outside the US POV-- I just don't know the accreditation used outside the US.Gaviidae 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking to become a Radiologic Technologist. Anyone no where I should get started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.95.52 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing

I have made some editing in this page.

• First of all I expanded the article with some more information, Given headings

• Not only the information about salary is totally unnecessery for this article, but also that was not right -with my best knowledge, I deleted that portion.

• The Radiography professionals are no more assisting any other professionals. Radiologic Technologists are working as members of a patient care team, not as assistants . So 'assisting physicians' also deleted my me:)

Kaaliyambi 23:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Confused

I'm confused about to what degree the Radiologic technologist performs diagnostic work. After they've produced the x-ray image, do they generally interpret it as well, or is it handed off to a physician to interpret? I've heard of some hospitals out-sourcing some radiological work, but I'm not clear on what services exactly the out-sourcers perform. Charles (Kznf) 18:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In the US, the rad tech does NOT interpret images--only physicians are allowed to do this (usually radiologists, but some others do as well, especially images directly relating to their specialty--orthopedic surgeons reading knee x-rays, for example, or Emergency Medicine doctors reading trauma films). What rad techs do is evaluate the films for diagnostic quality. That is, we make sure the necessary anatomy is included, and the quality of the image is such that the doctor can use it to make a useful diagnosis. This is not the case in the UK and (presumably) some other countries, where the radiographer will often be asked to provide a preliminary report to the ordering doctor. This report isn't final and official until a radiologist reads the study and signs or changes the report, though. In the US, radiographers may occasionally be asked what they saw by an ordering doctor, but this is strictly informal and just between the radiographer and ordering doctor.

Actually there is an advanced class of radiological technologist in the US called Radiologist Assistants (RA), who are similar to the Nurse Practitioners (NP) and Physician Assistants (PA) and are able to make initial diagnosis and perform complex radiological procedures.

Advanced practice in radiography is also utilized in the UK. Australian and Canadian associations are also pushing for advanced practice for their members.99.226.205.103 (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What you're probably heard (about outsourcing) is related to "teleradiology." That is, a radiologist or group of radiologists who is off site and reads images sent through a computer network. X-rays (or CT scans, MRI scans, ultrasound exams, etc) are performed, the images sent to the offsite radiologist, and his report is sent back to the hospital's radiology department. This can be very useful in a number of ways, especially allowing smaller hospitals to have radiology coverage 24/7 or access to radiology subspecialty experts that they wouldn't otherwise have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.39.236 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify on the radiographers role in the UK, the job in the UK allows for a large amount of role extension beyond what you might find in the US. For example there are courses here which enables radiographers to train and be able to formally report plain films (axial and appendicular) as well as head CT scans. There is also scope for radiographers to perfom Hysterosalpinograms, line insertions and nerve root injections for pain relief and much more. Doing this, allows the radiologist more free time to cover more specialised work etc. Heather 20:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Glitzy_queen00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitzy queen00 (talk • contribs)

In the U.S., because of the education requirement issues, radiographers do not have the power to make any interpretations (but sonographers generally do make initial interpretations though). However in many other countries, radiography is being studied at the same level as medicine (ie. bachelor of medicine vs. bachelor of radiography or equivalent). And after you receive higher education such as master's degree, you will be able to practice radiography at a higher level (make diagnosis or perform advanced procedures), such as the ones in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.77.145 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It varies from country to country. In the UK Radiographer reporting, for many examinations, has been established for many years. This generally follows a Post Graduate course of study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.113.145 (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Tidied up conversation indentation. 01Chris02 (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Radiographers Extended Role in the UK

I know that someone I work with at a hospital in London, is the first radiographer in the UK to perform Nerve Root injections. This has never been reported in any articles as this is quite recent. Due to this I am unable to provide a reference. Can anyone help?? Heather 17:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Glitzy_queen00

Safety section

The section on Safety, specifically the MRI mention seems to state a risk that is not substansiated by the referenced article (that 15 mins in an MRI field causes cellular changes.) This seems to be a mis-statement of the actual risk of MRI scanning, stating a possible effect as a certainty. 86.132.89.12 (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nature of the work

"The term "technician" is reserved for biomedical technicians who fix medical equipments and is not related in any way with the allied medical professionals known as "Radiologic Technologists". It is unethical and offensive on the part of a radiologic technologist to be addressed as "technician" because they are highly educated and licensed professionals."

This paragraph is quite bizarre and I believe that it should be removed. It would appear that someone has been offended by the undervaluation of their role - that is insufficent reason to write such a personalised message to the world, IMHO.

I won't be passing by this page again, so over to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.55.170 (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Stress and Challenges

A very poorly written section, probably best removed as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.135.3.175 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision

I have edited the article, removed the terrible 'stress and chalenges' section drivel. Edited the dangers to more accurate levels. Corrected grammar throughout. Many of the dangers were referenced only with the physiological effects of exposure to pathogens, radiation etc, but did not reference their actual liklihood of being encoutered/having an effect on the radiographer. With regard to studies on the incidence of cancer among radiogaphers, it is only established by correlative studies, as tumor appearance constitutes a stochastic effect within the low doses used by radiographers, and cannot therefore be referenced causally. This may seem a minor point, but its' distinction is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.183.167 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Risks

I've considerably corrected this section by removing risks that fail verification, such as the ionization danger. Not only did the cited source not mention that at all, ionizing radiation powerful enough to regularly produce toxic levels of ozone would cause serious issues for patients. The claim was dubious at best. Other risks were overstated (wildly, in the MRI and hospital-acquired infection cases) compared to the source material. The only thing left there is the spinal injury line, which I personally feel is plausible, but no citation was provided. I'm sure someone can find a good example of spinal injuries from patient movement in allied health. --75.151.200.177 (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

17 Sep 2011 revert

I reverted the changes to unsourced and NPOV information by Electromagnetictop2. A prior user, Electromagnetictop, was the source of those and was blocked for disruptive editing by User:Fastily. After I reported the behavior of Electromagnetictop2, Fastily agreed it was most likely an account created to evade the block and blocked Electromagnetictop2. So, after reviewing the subsequent edits to the page, I went ahead and reverted the text to the revision by Helpful Pixie Bot, which was the most recent one before Electromagnetictop2 reverted to the previous version they created. I also integrated some of the copy edits from subsequent edits, but if I didn't get them all and clobbered your change, I apologize. --75.151.200.177 (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup (Added UK information and a few references too)

I'm a year 2 BSc diagnostic radiography student in the UK and noticed how uneven and poorly cited this article is. I'm going to try and add references over time to this page and add more up to date information - especially for the UK and Australia. If I've made a bad edit please undo just that portion and tell me what's wrong here so I can correct it or reference it properly.

I will also try to tidy up the overall structure and appearance of this page. Unrelated: Imagine what patients think when they google our profession and this thing comes up. Needs a lot of work! Haha.

Feedback would be good so please criticize freely.

01Chris02 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Added a globalise tag as it's kind of UK and US biased at the moment, can anyone else contribute to help expand this? 01Chris02 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a name more neutral than radiologic technologist as this, as far as I'm aware, is only really used in the USA. I've seen US workers call themselves radiographers before and it seems to be much more universal. Does anyone have any input on this? The name radiologic technologist is not used in the UK, most of Europe, South Africa, Australia, etc. 01Chris02 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Radiologic technologist → Radiographer – 'Radiologic Technologist' is a name which is almost exclusively used in the United States, as a result it does not represent a worldwide perspective of the name for this profession. One way to evidence this is to look at the ISRRT's council members (http://www.isrrt.org/isrrt/Council_Members.asp) list to see what radiographers from different countries around the world call themselves.

If a tally is counted the USA's representative was the only councillor who used the term 'Radiologic Technologist'; note that she also used the term 'radiographer' to describe herself. Whereas over 20 other country representatives used the term 'radiographer' making it more common and hence more universal. This is in line with this Wikipedia naming policy. This move will make the article more globally representative. 01Chris02 (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Common name worldwide. Also used in the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. More common and global. Stickee (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.