The Royal College of Radiologists' 2025 census, answered by every UK radiology department, found AI tools in 75% of them, and no workload reduction for over three-quarters of clinical directors

Event date / reported

Evidence stage

Tasks this bears on

Where this applies

The United Kingdom only, and hospital radiology departments only. This is the College's 18th annual census of its own members, answered by clinical directors with a 100% completion rate, so its adoption figures are a count of a defined population rather than a sample. Two clauses carry the linked tasks. On answering for the machine, the report states that additional time would also be required by consultants to oversee and monitor the AI system itself, and prints a clinical radiologist's own words: it slows down my acute stroke reporting as I have to check the AI and I often conclude that it is incorrect, I then have to explain this in my report. On the report itself, AI tools to aid in drafting reports are in place in 11% of departments and, of those using them, 24% of clinical directors said the tools reduced their workload, which is the most positive figure for any use case in this census and still a minority. Overall adoption: 75% of departments use AI tools in some capacity and support for image interpretation is in place in 58%. Counter-signals from the same document, which are the reason it is worth recording: across every use case more than three-quarters of clinical directors report that AI tools are either having no impact or are increasing their workloads; AI implementation ranked last of seven productivity initiatives at 28% positive against 70% for more skill mix and administrative support; and the report concludes that at this stage it does not appear that AI tools in radiology are simultaneously enabling faster and more accurate reporting, detection of more disease, and a reduction in the backlog. What it does not establish: it counts departments that hold a tool, not studies a machine read, so it says nothing about what share of reading is machine-first; and the workload figures are clinical directors' judgements rather than measured time, while the adoption figures are counts. The College has a stake and it runs both ways, since it is campaigning for more training places and cites these findings in support, and it also recommends further government investment in AI tools. The date is derived from the census's own line that data collection began in September 2025; no collection end date is given and the report's copyright line reads June 2026.

What this means

What it does not yet show

It does not say that a machine read any study before a person did. The census counts departments that own a tool, not examinations, so nothing here measures how much of the reading itself has moved. The workload answers are clinical directors' judgements after a year of use, not stopwatch measurements, and the college says outright that a tool deployed late in the window would not yet have shown its benefit.

What you can check

Does it change the assessment?

Source