Imaging with non-Ionising Radiation – 2025 review results

Current priority areas

• 10 Year Health Plan for England: fit for the future
• Science in healthcare: Delivering the NHS Long Term Plan – The Chief Scientific Officer’s strategy

Stakeholder feedback

Feedback collecting through the Curriculum Library survey collected between January 2024 and November 2025. All stakeholder feedback is presented verbatim.

Programme

• I feel that a better structure for the training activities would be a set of “core/mandatory” training activities, and then a selection of optional training activities needing to complete 20 of the 30 or so training activities to complete the module. This will also allow the training can be better catered towards individual centres as the role and daily activities of the medical physics staff will differ wildly. There are some training activities that we are really having to shoe-horn into our clinical duties so that we can get these trainees signed off.
• I think that MRI should be separated from INIR. There should at least be options for the trainee/training centre to choose which aspects they would like to / need to specialise in e.g. choose all MRI or all ultrasound.
• I think the majority of training tasks in the STP specialism for INIR are satisfactory and can be met, the competency on pulse programming in MRI is difficult to achieve and should be removed from the curriculum, this is not standard practice for many clinical scientists working within MRI. A basic awareness is enough and does not need to be a whole training activity. There could be scope to include specific training activities around use of AI in MRI and US.
• There is too much content to cover in any depth.  Especially in the third year when trying to balance MSc project as well.  I would recommend removing a number of the niche or less relevant training activities so that trainees have more time to complete the training activities to a higher standard and greater depth of knowledge.
• The MSc has been adapted to be still very current.
• There needs to be information and resources about how we can scan in MRI sustainably, given that MRI scanners use a significant amount of energy in the hospital. I would suggest that there be a competency which covers this topic, aiming that STP trainees become aware of the environmental impact that MRI scanners have and how we can ensure that we use this technology sustainably.

Programme learning outcomes

• 1 – I think that MRI should be separated from INIR. There should at least be options for the trainee/training centre to choose which aspects they would like to / need to specialise in e.g. choose all MRI or all ultrasound.
• 2 – SI-IN-S2 (MRI) – learning outcome 2 and associated training activities 16 & 17

These training activities are not reflective of routine practice and are too specific/advanced for a final year STP trainee. Neither reconstruction of images from k-space data nor pulse sequence programming are part of routine MR physics clinical scientist work. While I would expect trainees at this stage to have a theoretical understanding of k-space, image reconstruction and pulse sequence design, I would not generally expect them to have practical skills in them. These are skills that may individuals may or may not need to develop at some point in their career if they get involved in certain projects (generally research), but not something I would see as required to practice as a clinical scientist in this specialism. Specifically for training activity 17 -while the activity does allow for use of open-source development tools and simulation rather than actual testing on a scanner (which gets around the issue that most trusts will not have access to/permissions to use vendor systems), this is still not something that all MR physics teams would be readily able to supervise. I would strongly suggest this training activity be replaced by something more reflecting clinical practice, and that activity 16 be reviewed from a similar perspective (albeit this one is a little less problematic as it is easier to generate a simulated task to achieve).

S-IN-R1 Introduction to Imaging with non-Ionising Radiation

Training activities

• 1
  • Task -We have issues delivering this module as our non-ionising scientists are rarely invited to MDT meetings. RPC meetings don’t often include non-ionising and if they do it’s usually lasers, not MRI or Ultrasound
  • Consideration- The first consideration is also considered in S-IN-R1(2)
• 2 – Having the competency be a combination of 3 specialities made submission on OneFile administratively difficult. Training officers were not happy signing off the competency on behalf of the other training officers. So submission would need to be made, verified verbally, unlocked and then sent to a different training officer. In my case, these training officers do not work with each other. Please consider splitting Training Activity #1 and #2 into separate training activities. I know that this will make the total number not equal 10, but I found it added unnecessary difficulty to a system to trainees are just figuring out OneFile, and rotational training officers who only use OneFile 1 month of every year.
• 5
  • Task – This is very hard to observe for most patients. As almost every section of the pathway is completed by a different group of staff and with many of the steps having a number of gaps within the pathway. This means you end up seeing scans for different types of staff groups. This makes it not flow and the information hard to gather. Also most of the information is also commented on in training activity 3,4
  • Type – This is the correct type as all rotational training activities should be OTAs

Direct Observation of Practical Skills (DOPS)

• “Perform simple scan of a phantom or patient”- This seems significantly simpler than similar DOPS in other rotational modules. Due to the wide range of equipment that could be used to perform a scan it is very varied as to how this could be used in practice. If this was made to be a little more specific it would be more comparable to other DOPS on the other rotations.

S-IN-S1 Image Acquisition, Processing and Clinical Application

Training activities

• 19 – While this training activity was interesting to see, I don’t think it was necessary since I believe it does not contribute to my ability to be a Clinical Scientist. Every other physicist I have spoken to was unsure of what this training activity involved since it is not part of their work. I don’t think it is necessary to perform training activities which aren’t relevant to the role of a Physicist.
• 19 – Not relevant, doesn’t add benefit to training.
• 19 – Task not relevant, suggest removal

S-IN-S2 MRI

Module aim

• I think that MRI should be separated from INIR. There should at least be options for the trainee/training centre to choose which aspects they would like to / need to specialise in e.g. choose all MRI or all ultrasound.

Training activities

• 5 – This (and training activity 17 – Perform a simple pulse-sequence development task using the manufacturer-supplied or an open-source development environment. Evaluate the results using either simulations or tests on an MRI scanner) is not something that is done routinely (if even ever) in a clinical setting and so is very hard for some centres to deliver, and is not truly reflective of the day-to-day work of an MRI physicist.
• 5 – Currently this is too complicated, and not a routine task I would do as part of my job.  Either provide more guidance on how to complete this task in a simple way, or remove it.
• 11 – Combined with TA 12 and 13, this is too much content to cover in any meaningful detail in the timeframe provided.  Suggest completing either TA 11 or 12 or 13, so that the trainee has gone into greater depth in one particular area either cardiac or neuro or body.
• 15 – Suggest either removing, or changing to: “Evaluate different pulse sequences and protocols for radiotherapy planning” As it may be difficult for trainees to optimise.
• 16 – Suggest changing this TA to basic k-space manipulation e.g. removing centre or edge of data to see effect on final image, rather than correcting alignment, which is not something I would do as part of my job.
• 17 – Not all sites do this, suggest removing.  I have never done this as part of my role
• 18 – Feels very niche, and could easily be removed to make more time for other TAs

S-IN-S3 Advanced Ultrasound and Optical Radiation Safety

Module aim

• We are pleased the module is pitched at the right level of knowledge and skill mixes, and fosters working as part of consortia/collaborations

Changes made

Module level changes

Programme level changes

• no changes made

Periodic review

This specialty curriculum requires significant change beyond the scope of an annual review.

Response – no

Rationale

Please provide an overview of the rationale for why the proposed changes are needed or why changes were not needed, with reference to stakeholder feedback.

Response

Madalina Negoita: Ultrasound

Aim – No change:

• I don’t believe MRI and US should be separated as the module is called “Imaging with non-ionising”. Furthermore, there is not enough to have US as stand alone

S-IN-R1 Introduction to Imaging with Non-Ionising Radiation DOPS No changes:

• I believe the feedback is based on difficulties they encountered in their local workplace
• I agree that scnning a phantom is much easier than scanning a patient, but the 2nd is not always possible. Scanning themselves might add to difficulty

S-IN-S1 Image Acquisition, Processing and Clinical Application Activity 19 No change:

• This is actually very important when working in US

S-IN-S3 Advanced Ultrasound and Optical Radiation Safety No change:

• Keep it as it is
• I do not believe changes are required based on the current feedback. The module is called “Imaging with non-ionising”; this means it should include all non-ionising specialties: MRI, US, UV, lasers, and i would add mocrowave and RF.

Robert Flintham: MRI

Programme Feedback

Feedback primarily relates to the structure of the programme, with an apparent conflict between different sub-specialties within this specialism (MRI, ultrasound, optical). Gross programme structure changes are beyond the scope of this first annual review, but this feedback is noted and will be explored for future reviews. While some flexibility between sub-specialties would be desirable (as asked for in the feedback), this would make end point assessments impossible within the current training structure, as trainees completing the INIR specialism would be unable to “pick and choose” assessments more relevant to their preferred sub-specialty and would still have to pass assessments covering all areas. This underlying conflict between sub-specialties that are not commonly practiced by the same group of scientists/trainers is a non-ideal situation, but my understanding is that this was seen to be the best compromise when developing the current curriculum so as not to “orphan” the potentially smaller areas of ultrasound and optical radiation. However, this can be reviewed again going forwards as the curriculum develops, especially as these areas are likely to continue to develop and diverge in clinical practice in the future.

The other area of feedback at programme level (rather than module level) was about the overall amount of content in Phase 3, which has to be balanced against the academic portion of STP (specifically the MSc project). Unfortunately, the number of training activities in each module cannot be modified as part of this review, as the number of training activities in a module is tied to the number of credits the module represents. As S-IN-S2 (MRI) is a 20 credit module, this module should have 20 training activities. While no changes are made to the key training activities flagged in this area of feedback (S-IN-S2 TA’s 11,12,13), a periodic review can be triggered to review these specific TA’s for content and scope to ensure they represent an appropriate amount of work as 15% of a 20 credit module.

General rationale for changes to MRI content

Changes have been recommended to a number of training activities (and in some cases an associated learning outcome) for one or more of the following reasons:

• Accessibility: Training activities that are more challenging to deliver due to one or more specific aspects have been broadened where possible to allow the learning outcome(s) to be achieved through similar means or applications (e.g. S-IN-S2 #15, S-IN-S1 #17)
• Currency: Recommendations are made to modify a number of training activities to make them more relevant to current and/or recently updated MRI practice (e.g. S-IN-S2 #2)
• Applicability: Training activities that mandated overly specific tasks that are not part of common MRI practice in a majority of MR centres have been adjusted such that these training activities/learning outcomes can be met in other similar ways (e.g. S-IN-S2 #5)

Some specific recommendations are also discussed below:

• S-IN-S2 #17 was felt to be overly specialised and multiple points of feedback were raised to this effect. This training activity has now been recommended for removal
• In place of S-IN-S2 #17, a new training activity has been recommended relating to the use of AI in MR image reconstruction. This is highly relevant to current MR practice and an area that MRI Clinical Scientists are expected to be able to lead on in clinical practice.
• S-IN-S2 #10 was felt to be too broad a task, and relied on access to a broad range of scanner specifications that are not typically available outside of infrequent (often confidential) procurement processes which trainees may not be exposed to during their training. The scope of this TA has therefore been reduced to require only two or more systems to be compared, and relaxed to allow the comparison of specifications for existing scanners where detailed specifications are more readily available. This is felt to still be relevant to the skills required of a Clinical Scientist in the support of MR scanner procurement processes.
• S-IN-S2 #3 was felt to be set at too high a level in its current form, as this activity as written would commonly be expected of someone working at MR Safety Expert level (i.e. significant post-registration experience and additional qualification/training). The recommended change reduces this scope and gives specific aspects of MR suite design to be considered, with the intent of making this more appropriate to the level of a newly qualified Clinical Scientist.

I confirm I have reviewed the Reflective Practice Guidance for ETAs and DTAs and have made any changes necessary.

Specialty Lead Editor signature: Dr Madalina Negoita, Robert Flintham
Date: 15 January 2026

Change control - completed by the school

Programme structure

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 16 January 2026

Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) mapping

• No learning outcomes changed for 2026. Mapping to 13.06: undertake or arrange investigations as appropriate, revisited due to change to the core curriculum. HCPC mapping maintained.
• Change to learning outcomes proposed for 2027, results in no changes to the HCPC SOP mapping.

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 16 January 2026