Literature DB >> 10560335

Interpretation of selected accident and emergency radiographic examinations by radiographers: a review of 11000 cases.

P J Robinson1, G Culpan, M Wiggins.   

Abstract

Two specially trained radiographers took part in the radiologists' rota for "cold" reporting skeletal radiographs of patients who attended the Accident and Emergency (A&E) Department at times when there was no "hot" reporting service operating, and who were not admitted for treatment or referred to fracture clinics for follow-up. These radiographs had initially been seen by A&E medical staff. At the end of an 18 month period during which the two radiographers reported on 11,322 skeletal examinations, a retrospective search was made to detect interpretive errors. The radiological history of all 11,322 patients was reviewed over a follow-up period of at least 3 months subsequent to the attendance reported by the radiographers. 48% of patients did not re-attend, 42% re-attended for unrelated examinations, and 10% re-attended for repeat examinations of the same anatomical area, or for different procedures (bone scintigraphy or CT) related to the original injury. The second (or subsequent) report was discrepant with that of the first attendance in only 29 cases out of 1103. Of these 29 patients, 13 had occult fractures which were undetectable at first attendance even in retrospect, six had new injuries accounting for the new findings, six had been the subject of false positive calls at an earlier visit, one had a fracture of the hamate missed at first attendance, and in three cases no consensus could be reached as to the cause of the discrepancy, owing to incomplete films or insufficient clinical data. Analysis of the patients' postcodes showed at least 89% were of local origin and only 1% were from outside Yorkshire, suggesting that the review should have identified the great majority of erroneous reports. It is concluded that appropriately trained and supervised radiographers can successfully undertake diagnostic reporting of selected skeletal examinations on A&E patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10560335     DOI: 10.1259/bjr.72.858.10560335

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  4 in total

1.  What is the effect of reporting all emergency department radiographs?

Authors:  J R Benger; I D Lyburn
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.740

2.  Can non-physician advanced retrieval practitioners (ARP) acquire and interpret diagnostic views of the lungs with sufficient quality to aid in the diagnosis of pneumothorax in the pre-hospital and retrieval environment?

Authors:  James Ronaldson; Christopher E J Moultrie; Alasdair R Corfield; Evelyn McElhinney
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2020-10-16       Impact factor: 2.953

3.  The impact of immediate reporting on interpretive discrepancies and patient referral pathways within the emergency department: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  M Hardy; B Snaith; A Scally
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Clinical impact of diagnostic imaging discrepancy by radiology trainees in an urban teaching hospital emergency department.

Authors:  Steven Marc Friedman; Erica Merman; Amit Chopra
Journal:  Int J Emerg Med       Date:  2013-07-16
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.