The aim of the article is to examine challenges that Medical Radiation Science practitioners face as they struggle to be recognized as professionals. In more detail, the purpose of the article is to look at factors that Medical Radiation Science faces in Australia, among which include: reducing operation costs, increasing consumer expectations, increasing competition within Medical Radiation Science, finding new ways to organise the Medical Radiation Science profession workforce and deregulation. The aim of this article is new, interesting, feasible and relevant. For a health care delivery system to be effective, high degrees of skill in professionalism are required2. A successful radiology department requires its practitioners to practice this skill well. Measuring performance and setting expectations with Medical Radiation Science practitioners were not issues that were held with emphasis until very lately3. There was lack of effort in raising issues and setting standards that the Medical Radiation Science practitioners needed to meet4. It is therefore crucial that researchers describe components that they can use to promote the Medical Radiation Science practitioners profession and professionalization.The recent focus that has been seen in the media and among the medical community on professionalism among health workers is a key player on determining the involvement of the Medical Radiation Science practitioners5. According to Luke and Jude, there have been widespread deficiencies when it comes to giving safe care of high quality in the Australian hospitals6. As a result, initiatives have begun in multiple hospitals. Six overreaching goals need to be set up to ensure optimal health care. These goals are that health care should be equitably given, safe, efficient, timely, patient centred and effective7. For these goals to be achieved, the Medical Radiation Science practitioners should improve their professionalism to improve patient care8.The research activity carried out by the subject article has been summarised in a well written abstract which quickly provides the reader with a quick glance into the article. The abstract in the article has been divided into three parts that include the purpose of the study, findings and conclusion. The findings in this article are ambiguous because no clear research methodology was followed. One of the findings includes low professional self-esteem and apathy among Medical
Argyris, Cass. “Teaching smart people how to learn.” Harv Bus Rev 75 (1991): 99–109.
Carraccio, Clark, Robert Englander, Sam Wolfsthal, Martin Collins, and Ferentz Kenneth. “Educating the pediatrician of the 21st century: Defining implementing a competency-based system.” Pediatrics 113 (2004): 252–258.
Coakley, Felix, Victor Liberman, and Lloyd Panicek. “Style guidelines for radiology reporting: A manner of speaking.” AJR Am J Roentgenol 180 (2003): 307–328.
Denham, Liam, and Frederick Strife. “Establishing a program to promote professionalism and effective communication in radiology.” Radiology 8 (2006): 163–179.
Donnelly, Luke, and Jude Strife. “Performance-based assessment of radiology faculty: A practical plan to promote improvement and meet JCAHO standards.” AJR Am J Roentgenol 184 (2005): 1398–1401.
Epstein, Ronald, and Hundert Milton. “Defining and assessing professional competence.” JAMA 287 (2002): 226–235.
Fidler, Hillary, Joseoh Lockyer, John Toews, and Clark Violato. “Changing physicians practices: The effect of individual feedback.” Acad Med 74 (1999): 702–714.
Galloway, Emery. “Ethics Education in the Radiology Residency Curriculum.” Am. J. Roentgenol 183(2004): 546 - 573.
Gunderman, Robert. “A vital skill for radiologic education.” Acad Radiol 8 (2001): 651–655.
Gunderman, Robert. “Role models in the education of radiologists.” AJR 179 (2002): 307 -329.
Halsted, Michael. “Radiology peer review as an opportunity to reduce errors and improve patient care.” J Am Coll Radiol 12 (2004): 984–987.
Janower, Michael. “Ethics Training for Radiology Residents.” Am. J. Roentgenol 184 (2005): 673 - 701.
Kruskal, Joseph, Brian Siewert, Steve Anderson, Richard Eisenberg, and John Sosna. “Managing an Acute Adverse Event in a Radiology Department.” RadioGraphics 28 (2008): 1237 - 1250.
Lipner, Ross, Lillian Blank, Floyd Leas, and Silvia Fortna. “The value of patient and peer ratings in recertification.” Acad Med 77 (2002): 34-66.
Lockyer, Joseph, Clay Violato, and Hilary Fidler. “The assessment of emergency physicians by a regulatory authority.” Acad Emerg Med 13 (2006): 1286–1303.
Madewell, John, Ron Hattery, and Steve Thomas. “American Board of Radiology: Maintenance of certification.” Radiology 234 (2005): 17–25.
Pichert, Jen, Charles Miller, and Albert Hollo. “What health professionals can do to identify and resolve patient dissatisfaction.” Jt Comm J Qual Improv 24 (1998): 303–312.
Ramsey, Patrick, Mark Wenrich, Julius Carline, Sirius Inui, and Evelyn Larson. “Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance.” JAMA 269 (1993): 1638–1660.
Robinson, Amos. “Maintaining consultation skills in todays practice environment.” Acad Radiol 8 (2001): 612-656.
Sim, Jenny, and Alex Radloff. “Profession and professionalization in medical radiation science as an emergent profession.” Radiography 15 (2009): 203-208
Thrall, Jenniffer. “Quality and safety revolution in health care.” Radiology 233 (2004): 3–12.
Violato, Clark, and Jen Lockyer. “Self and peer assessment of pediatricians, psychiatrists and medicine specialists: Implications for self-directed learning.” Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 11 (2006): 235–244.
Violato, Clark, Jen Lockyer, and Hilary Fidler. “The assessment of pediatricians by a regulatory authority.” Pediatrics 117 (2006): 776–802.
Wood, Jane, Bundy Collins, and Susan Burnsidel. “Patient, faculty, and self-assessment of radiology resident performance: A 360-degree method of measuring professionalism and interpersonal/communication skills.” Acad Radiol 11 (2004): 931–939.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples