Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T21:35:43.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Information and support radiographers: a critical review of the role and its significance for the provision of cancer services

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 August 2006

H. Colyer
Affiliation:
Department of Radiography, Canterbury Christ Church University College Kent, UK
T. Hlahla
Affiliation:
Department of Radiography, Canterbury Christ Church University College Kent, UK

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is twofold; firstly, to present for wider consideration data collected about the role of information and support radiographers (ISRs) in the United Kingdom and secondly, to review critically issues of significance arising from the initial data collection and content analysis.

The empirical material is taken from a much larger survey of Oncology Centres1 whose aim was to analyse the extent and effectiveness of information and support services for cancer patients in order to evaluate service provision in a less developed country. A short, self completed postal questionnaire to identified information and support radiographers was employed. It sought to identify the main components of the ISR role, underpinning qualifications, limitations and potential for development. 64% of ISRs surveyed responded (n = 22) and the findings are presented for consideration in this paper.

The discussion comprises a critical review by the first author of some issues raised by the findings in the context of the national service framework for integrated provision2 and current developments in the practice and processes of therapeutic radiography. Specifically, the relative contribution of different aspects of the role of the ISR are evaluated, examining the benefits to patients and professionals alike. The difficulties of trailblazing a new role in a traditional, hierarchical service are explored. The necessity of a profession specific base for information and support provision in clinical oncology is questioned and it is suggested that, professionally, there are both advantages and disadvantages to this role development, but there is support for a less predatory, more interprofessional approach.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
1999 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)