Saudi Radiologists’ and Radiographers’ Perceptions of Accreditation Programmes in Clinical Radiology Departments: A Cross-Sectional Study

Figures & data

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Study Sample

Profession	Hospital Types				Qualifications
	Public	Semi-Public	Private	Academic	Diploma	BSc	MSc	PhD
Head of Radiology Department	9 (7.7%)	4 (3.3%)	2 (2.7%)	2 (8.7%)	–	–	6 (9.8%)	11 (34.4%)
Chief of Radiographers	8 (6.8%)	13 (10.7%)	3 (4.1%)	2 (8.7%)	6 (14.6%)	6 (3%)	10 (16.4%)	4 (12.5%)
Radiologists	22 (18.8%)	12 (9.9%)	9 (12.2%)	4 (17.4%)	–	30 (14.9%)	5 (8.2%)	12 (37.5%)
Radiographers (Supervisor)	14 (12%)	15 (12.4%)	7 (9.5%)	4 (17.4%)	–	16 (8%)	22 (36.1%)	2 (6.3%)
Radiographers (Staff)	64 (54.7%)	77 (63.7%)	53 (71.5%)	11 (47.8%)	35 (85.4%)	149 (74.1%)	18 (29.5%)	3 (9.4%)
Total	117 (34.9%)	121 (36.1%)	74 (22.1%)	23 (6.9%)	41 (12.2%)	201 (60%)	61 (18.2%)	32 (9.6%)
	335				335

Notes: Qualification: Diplomat (2 years of post high school education+ one year internship in radiological science), BSc (4 years+ one year internship in radiological science), MSc (Post BSc education in radiological science), PhD (Post MSc education in radiological science). Profession: Radiologists (Medical doctor who completed a radiology residency program and board exam), Radiographers (Diplomat, BSc, MSc or PhD holder with valid registration from local authority).

Figure 1 Sociodemographic information (A: percentage of participants based on their gender, B: percentage of participants based on their place of work, C: percentage of participants based on their academic qualifications, D: percentage of participants based on their occupation/position).

Table 2 Radiology Personnel’s Level of Agreement Concerning

Question Number	Factors	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Undecided	Agree	Strongly Agree	Mean (SD)	Level of Agreement
		N (%)
	Domain 1: Quality results (The impact of accreditation on the quality of results in radiology departments)
1	There is a measurable and steady improvement in the customer satisfaction.	3 (1)	15 (4.5)	17 (5)	152 (45)	148 (44)	1.7 (0.82)	Strongly Agree
2	There is a measurable and steady improvement in the quality of patient care provision (eg infection control, professional communication, correct examination).	2 (1)	12 (3.6)	23 (7)	145 (43)	153 (46)	1.7 (0.79)	Strongly Agree
3	High-quality healthcare services have been maintained despite any constraints (eg financial, training opportunities).	5 (1.5)	20 (6)	33 (10)	146 (44)	131 (39)	1.9 (0.92)	Agree
	Domain 2: The impact of accreditation on leadership, commitment and support in radiology departments
4	Maintaining quality improvements was supported by highly visible leadership.	8 (3)	24 (7)	22 (6.6)	169 (50)	112 (33)	1.95 (0.94)	Agree
5	The department’s management allocates required resources (eg equipment, people, finances, time) to improve quality.	7 (2)	25 (8)	52 (16)	152 (45)	99 (30)	2 (0.96)	Agree
6	Quality of care and services improvement was in the high-yield activities for the department’s management.	5 (2)	26 (8)	41 (12)	162 (48)	101 (30)	2 (0.93)	Agree
7	A clear vision for improving the quality of care and services has been articulated by the department’s management.	7 (2)	36 (11)	29 (9)	170 (51)	93 (28)	2 (0.98)	Agree
	Domain 3: The impact of accreditation on strategic quality planning in radiology departments
8	Based on recommendations from accreditation audits, adequate time is given to radiology personnel to plan for and test quality improvement opportunities.	8 (2)	41 (12)	42 (13)	150 (45)	94 (28)	2 (1.04)	Agree
9	Radiology personnel contribute in plan development for quality improvement in your department.	9 (3)	34 (10)	39 (12)	166 (50)	87 (26)	2 (1)	Agree
10	Prioritising quality improvement requirement is one of the key roles played by middle managers (eg Chief of Radiographers and/or Technical Directors and Supervisors).	3 (1)	17 (5)	50 (15)	165 (49)	100 (30)	1.9 (0.85)	Agree
11	The quality of services expected by patients is essential in deciding on quality improvement priorities.	5 (2)	18 (5)	32 (10)	181 (54)	99 (30)	1.95 (0.86)	Agree
12	A key role is played by radiology personnel in setting priorities for quality improvement through representation in the department’s organisational chart.	7 (2)	27 (8)	41 (12)	161 (48)	99 (30)	2 (0.96)	Agree
	Domain 4: The impact of accreditation on human resources in radiology departments
13	Training and continuous education are provided to radiology personnel.	13 (4)	38 (11)	46 (14)	150 (45)	88 (26)	2.2 (1.07)	Agree
14	Radiology personnel are acknowledged (eg financially, verbally, etc.) for their performance in improving quality.	31 (10)	39 (12)	60 (18)	135 (40)	70 (21)	2.4 (1.2)	Agree
15	The radiology department has an effective system for radiology personnel to make suggestions to management on how to improve quality.	19 (6)	34 (10)	40 (12)	161 (48)	81 (24)	2.2 (1.10)	Agree
	Domain 5: the staff involvement in accreditation within radiology departments
16	Following the last cycle of accreditation review, the radiology department management implemented required changes.	9 (3)	20 (6)	53 (16)	162 (48)	91 (27)	2 (0.95)	Agree
17	There was participation in the implementation of these changes in the radiology department.	10 (3)	26 (8)	58 (17)	148 (44)	93 (28)	2.1 (1)	Agree
18	The recommendations made to the radiology department since the last survey by the accreditation team were helpful.	6 (2)	23 (7)	56 (17)	159 (48)	91 (27)	2 (0.93)	Agree
19	The recommendations given by the accreditation team and/or auditors were helpful in improving radiology personnel skills/knowledge.	4 (1)	29 (9)	56 (17)	157 (47)	89 (27)	2 (0.9)	Agree
	Domain 6: The benefits of accreditation in radiology departments
20	Accreditation improves patient care in the radiology department.	4 (1)	16 (5)	40 (12)	165 (49)	110 (33)	1.9 (0.86)	Agree
21	Accreditation facilitates teamwork and collaboration encouragement and staff motivation.	8 (2)	21 (6)	68 (20)	147 (44)	91 (27)	2.1 (0.96)	Agree
22	A better use of resources (ie finances, people, time and equipment) were enabled following accreditation.	9 (3)	25 (8)	63 (19)	152 (45)	86 (26)	2.1 (0.98)	Agree
23	Collaboration with other healthcare partners (other hospitals, diverse hospitals, private clinics, etc.) was achieved following accreditation.	8 (2.4)	21 (6.3)	72 (21.5)	136 (41)	98 (29)	2.1 (0.98)	Agree
24	A local accreditation programme is a valuable tool to improve service delivery within the radiology department.	7 (2)	26 (8)	56 (17)	136 (41)	110 (33)	2 (0.99)	Agree
25	An international accreditation programme is a valuable tool to improve service delivery within the radiology department.	7 (2)	12 (4)	53 (16)	156 (47)	107 (32)	1.87 (0.9)	Agree

Table 3 Comparison of All Domains According to the Sociodemographic Variables

	Domain 1: Quality Results (The Impact of Accreditation on the Quality of Results in Radiology Departments)
	Hospital Type				Qualification				Occupation
	Public	Semi-public	Academic	Private	Dip	BSc	MSc	PhD	Head of department	Radiologists	Chief of radiographers	Radiographer (Supervisor)	Radiographers
Mean	1.82	1.61	2.15	1.83	1.9	1.75	1.65	1.91	1.46	1.91	1.66	1.70	1.78
SD	0.79	0.63	0.63	0.75	0.78	0.69	0.68	0.95	0.41	0.90	0.76	0.75	0.69
P value	0.002				0.22				0.21
	Domain 2: The impact of accreditation on leadership, commitment and support in radiology departments
Mean	2.11	1.82	2.26	2.17	2.21	2.02	1.88	2.12	1.65	2.16	1.81	2.03	2.05
SD	0.93	0.67	0.74	8.13	0.74	0.80	0.79	1.04	0.79	0.89	0.61	0.92	0.79
P value	0.001				0.20				0.108
	Domain 3: The impact of accreditation on strategic quality planning in radiology departments
Mean	2.14	1.85	2.32	2.15	2.28	2.01	1.95	2.21	1.66	2.25	2.04	2.12	2.03
SD	0.87	0.66	0.63	0.79	0.77	0.79	0.74	0.76	0.48	0.77	0.52	0.90	0.79
P value	0.001				0.1				0.09
	Domain 4: The impact of accreditation on human resources in radiology departments
Mean	2.53	2.02	2.85	2.30	2.56	2.26	2.15	2.65	2.07	2.42	2.29	2.25	2.32
SD	1.16	0.87	0.91	0.91	1.04	1.02	0.95	1.03	0.81	0.87	0.69	1.09	1.08
P value	0.001				0.041				0.78
	Domain 5: The staff involvement in accreditation within radiology departments
Mean	2.17	1.91	2.15	2.31	2.41	2.01	2.13	2.27	1.77	2.28	2.23	2	2.1
SD	0.95	0.71	0.61	0.75	0.85	0.81	0.77	0.82	0.51	0.76	0.66	0.79	0.86
P value	0.001				0.02				0.17
	Domain 6: The benefits of accreditation in radiology departments
Mean	2.13	1.85	2.25	2.21	2.36	1.98	2.01	2.25	1.78	2.4	2.16	2.05	1.99
SD	0.91	0.71	0.79	0.71	0.75	0.80	0.76	0.80	0.52	0.82	0.63	0.86	0.80
P value	0.004				0.02				0.014

Table 4 Correlation Matrix Between Domains

		Domain 1	Domain 2	Domain 3	Domain 4	Domain 5	Domain 6
Domain 1	Correlation Coefficient	1	0.665	0.603	0.581	0.557	0.550
	P value		0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001
Domain 2	Correlation Coefficient	0.665	1	0.730	0.695	0.633	0.657
	P value	0.001		0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001
Domain 3	Correlation Coefficient	0.603	0.730	1	0.737	0.711	0.708
	P value	0.001	0.001		0.001	0.001	0.001
Domain 4	Correlation Coefficient	0.581	0.695	0.737	1	0.720	0.702
	P value	0.001	0.001	0.001		0.001	0.001
Domain 5	Correlation Coefficient	0.557	0.633	0.711	0.720	1	0.728
	P value	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001		0.001
Domain 6	Correlation Coefficient	0.550	0.657	0.708	0.702	0.728	1
	P value	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001