Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jan 31;7:100216.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejro.2020.01.005. eCollection 2020.

Assessment of the Professional Practice Knowledge of Computed Tomography Preceptors

Free PMC article

Assessment of the Professional Practice Knowledge of Computed Tomography Preceptors

Mohamed M Abuzaid et al. Eur J Radiol Open. .
Free PMC article


Objectives: This study aimed to assess the knowledge and practice of computed tomography (CT) clinical practice preceptors in terms of CT parameters affecting patient dose and image quality.

Material and methods: A self-administered questionnaire that surveyed the participants' demographic information and knowledge about CT parameters and radiation doses was distributed to 60 CT preceptors.

Results: The response rate of the invited technologists was 92 %. 38 (69 %) males and 17 (31 %) females aged between 24 and 59 years, with a mean age of 37.8. The participants' experience ranged between 2 and 24 years, with a mean of 15.5 years. The average knowledge score was 72.2 %, with a range of correct answers of 9-18 and a mean (±SD) of 13.1 ± 2.1. The participants showed a low awareness of diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). However, they demonstrated good overall knowledge, with a potential for improvement and confidence in practice.

Conclusions: Continuous medical education and professional development are a priority for improvement to ensure reliable delivery of health care and best practice. The findings of this study can be used by education institutes and health organizations when designing educational programs to ensure the highest training and performance of their technologists.

Keywords: Awareness; CT parameters; CT technologists; Clinical practice; Computed tomography; Knowledge.

Conflict of interest statement

Authors declare no conflict of interest.


Fig. 1
Fig. 1
kVp correct knowledge Response.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
ATCM correct knowledge Response.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Noise correct knowledge Response.

Similar articles

See all similar articles


    1. Power S.P., Moloney F., Twomey M., James K., O’Connor O.J., Maher M.M. Computed tomography and patient risk: facts, perceptions and uncertainties. World J. Radiol. 2016;8(12):902. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Grant J. Learning needs assessment: assessing the need. Br. Med. J. 2002;324(7330):156–159. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Booth L., Henwood S., Miller P. Reflections on the role of consultant radiographers in the UK: What is a consultant radiographer? Radiography. 2016;22(1):38–43.
    1. Field L.J., Snaith B.A. Developing radiographer roles in the context of advanced and consultant practice. J. Med. Radiat. Sci. 2013;60(1):11–15. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Elshami W.E., Abuzaid M.M., Guraya S.S., David L.R. Acceptability and potential impacts of innovative E-Portfolios implemented in E-Learning systems for clinical training. J. Taibah. Univ. Med. Sci. 2018;13(6):521–527. - PMC - PubMed