Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiography practice: findings from a UK radiography workforce survey

Theophilus N Akudjedu; Olanrewaju Lawal; Meera Sharma; Jason Elliott; Sharon Stewart; Terri Gilleece; Sonyia McFadden; James M Franklin

doi:10.1259/bjro.20200023

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiography practice: findings from a UK radiography workforce survey

BJR Open. 2020 Sep 2;2(1):20200023. doi: 10.1259/bjro.20200023. eCollection 2020.

Authors

Theophilus N Akudjedu¹, Olanrewaju Lawal², Meera Sharma³, Jason Elliott⁴, Sharon Stewart⁵, Terri Gilleece⁶, Sonyia McFadden⁶, James M Franklin¹

Affiliations

¹ Institute of Medical Imaging & Visualisation, Department of Medical Science & Public Health, Faculty of Health & Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK.
² Department of Allied Health Professions, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, UK.
³ School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Coventry University, Coventry, UK.
⁴ School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
⁵ Department of Podiatry and Radiography, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
⁶ Institute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Ulster, UK.

Abstract

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.