Virtual colonoscopy training and accreditation: a national survey of radiologist experience and attitudes in the UK

Aim

Expert consensus recommends directed training and possibly in the future, formal accreditation before independent virtual colonoscopy (VC) reporting. We surveyed radiologists' experience of VC training, compared with barium enema, and assessed attitudes towards accreditation.

Materials and methods

A questionnaire was sent to 78 consultant radiologists from 72 centres (65 National Health Service hospitals; seven independent primary screening centres) offering a VC service.

Results

Fifty-four (69%) eligible radiologists responded. They had interpreted 18,152 examinations (range 3–1500) in total versus 232,350 (13 times more) barium enemas. Twenty-two (41%) deemed their VC training as inadequate [including five (45%) of screening centre radiologists], and only 14 (26%) had attended a training workshop due to lack of availability (54%) or financial/study leave constraints (24%). Eleven (20%) radiologists routinely double-reported VC examinations versus 37 (69%) barium enemas, yet 21 (39%) considered requirements for VC training were greater than barium enema. Thirty-eight (70%) favoured accreditation beyond internal audit for VC versus 15(28%) for barium enema. Of these 38, seven (18%) favoured “one-off,” and 18 (47%) periodic testing, with 16 (42%) favouring external audit alone or in combination with testing. Overall, 42 (78%) considered specific accreditation for reporting screening examinations appropriate and 45 (83%) respondents preferred a national radiological organization to regulate such a scheme.

Conclusion

There is wide variability in reporting experience and recommendations for VC training have not been widely adopted, in part due to limited access to dedicated workshops. UK radiologists are generally in favour of VC accreditation, governed by a national radiology organization.