To determine whether radiologic technologists' perceptions of determinants of radiation safety culture differ significantly based on their primary role. A secondary analysis of deidentified data from 425 radiologic technologists who participated in the Radiation Actions and Dimensions of Radiation Safety questionnaire, a 35-item survey with valid and reliable psychometric properties, was performed. Nine determinants (dependent variables) of radiation safety culture were analyzed in this study. The radiologic technologists worked primarily as staff technologists; shift, team, or modality leads; and managers or directors. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze differences in favorability for the determinants of radiation safety culture by primary role. Games-Howell post hoc tests were conducted to analyze the hypothesis for each determinant. Four determinants demonstrated significant differences with appropriate observed power between staff technologists, leads, and managers and directors: questioning attitude (P < .001), feedback loops (P < .001), leadership actions (P < .001), and nonpunitive response (P < .001). The findings indicate that dialogue is needed between all stakeholders to improve the radiation safety culture and that power imbalances caused by the hierarchical system should be considered when seeking to improve the safety culture. Positional hierarchies in the medical imaging profession affect the perception of radiation safety, with managers and directors having different perceptions of leadership actions, questioning attitudes, feedback loops, and nonpunitive responses than staff technologists. Therefore, radiologic technologist subgroups must be included purposefully in the process of establishing a radiation safety culture in the imaging department.

To investigate the types and frequency of workplace violence experienced by radiologic technologists and to identify which technologists using specific imaging modalities are at increased risk. A mixed-methods approach was employed using a research electronic data capture (REDCap; Vanderbilt University) survey designed to establish information on radiologic technologists' self-reported experiences with workplace violence. The survey was distributed to a random sample of 10 000 radiologic technologists working with various imaging disciplines. Participants (N = 193) were asked questions regarding personal and employment demographics, experiences with violence, and reporting and education practices. Radiologic technologists were shown to have experienced most workplace violence from patients or visitors. Among those surveyed, 50% or more reported being hit, bitten, called names, harassed, threatened, or having hair pulled by a patient. Verbal intimidation by patients, visitors, and others also was reported, with more than 50% experienced from visitors and more than 40% from patients, coworkers, radiologists, other physicians, or other health care providers. Statistical tests to evaluate a relationship between types of workplace violence and imaging modalities showed an association between name-calling by visitors and modality (P < .001). Results indicated that technologists performing computed tomography imaging, adult diagnostic imaging in the emergency department, and magnetic resonance imaging experienced the most frequent occurrences of name-calling by visitors. Workplace violence, which can affect a person mentally, physically, and emotionally, might occur in any work environment. In the health care setting, radiologic technologists might experience workplace violence originating from coworkers, other health care professionals, patients, visitors, or a combination of these sources. Therefore, a health care organization's acknowledgment of workplace violence and their resolve to prevent or reduce its occurrence is important. Providing sufficient human resources and adequate workplace violence education courses might be the first steps in eliminating workplace violence in the health care environment. Workplace violence creates an undesirable working environment, leading to negative implications for the health care worker and the patient. Education that details possible types of workplace violence and best practices for handling each type is key to protecting employees. This study provides a foundation for future quality improvement studies aimed at protecting the mental and physical health of imaging professionals.

To review the basics of 3-D printing and discuss the future of 3-D printing and its place in medical imaging. A literature search was conducted using EBSCO, JSTOR, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. Recent publications that provided robust and current information were preferred, but older articles were used, if needed. 3-D printing began by converting a computer-aided design into a physical model. Also referred to as additive manufacturing, 3-D printing was developed as an alternative to the more costly process of subtractive manufacturing. The construction, application, and implementation of 3-D product designs has allowed for 3-D printing in various environments, from manufacturing to medicine. Since its beginning, the purpose and applicability of 3-D printing have shifted from the simple production of visual prototypes to the provision of innovative solutions to problems. 3-D printing has allowed for greater creativity in medicine and is increasing the popularity of medical imaging because of its suitability for anatomic modeling, teaching, and patient education. Radiology departments are becoming vital components of 3-D printing in health care by providing computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging data sets to designate anatomical structures for 3-D fabrication. 3-D medical printing programs in hospital settings might be limited to larger facilities because of associated start-up costs. However, as competition in the 3-D market increases, costs are expected to decline, which will help reduce barriers to 3-D printing across the health care community.