Literature DB >> 10879721

Vetting requests for body computed tomography.

R L Harrison1, B Housden, C Hay, A K Dixon.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the process and outcome of hospitalised patients (inpatients) for whom whole-body CT was requested but not performed. For 6 months the reasons why CT was not performed were recorded, together with relevant discussions with clinicians. Subsequent referrals for alternative investigations were noted. The eventual outcome of the patients was monitored via the patients' records. Eighty-three (8%) of 1001 inpatient requests were identified for which body CT was not performed after an electronically generated request. Fifty-five requests were not accepted by the radiology department during the vetting process for a variety of reasons (often more than one): criteria used for rejection often overlapped and included referrals outside national guidelines (n = 20), better alternative investigations (n = 29), time constraints (n = 19), over-zealous requests (n = 17) and clinicians' erroneous interpretation of preceding imaging investigations (n = 9). Sixteen CT exams were cancelled by a clinician. An additional 12 exams were not performed for miscellaneous non-medical reasons. In no case could a patient's death be ascribed to CT not being performed. Most (981 of 1001, 98%) CT requests comply with current guidelines, disproving a perception that many radiological referrals are inappropriate. In our health care system radiologists have to turn down some appropriate CT referrals due to a lack of CT capacity. Although lack of CT contributed to delay in diagnosis, no patient died as a direct result of not having CT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10879721     DOI: 10.1007/s003300051055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  10 in total

1.  Clinico-radiological meetings: are they worthwhile?

Authors:  D P Leung; A K Dixon
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 2.350

2.  Spiral CT: how much does radiation dose matter?

Authors:  A K Dixon; P Dendy
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-10-03       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Helical CT technique for the diagnosis of appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a focused appendix CT examination.

Authors:  P M Rao; J T Rhea; R A Novelline; C J McCabe; J N Lawrason; D L Berger; R Sacknoff
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Radiologic consultation: effect on inpatient diagnostic imaging evaluation in a teaching hospital.

Authors:  R H Gottlieb; G M Hollenberg; P J Fultz; D J Rubens
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Patient doses from standard and spiral CT of the head using a fast twin-beam system.

Authors:  H Seifert; T Hagen; K Bartylla; G Blass; U Piepgras
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Effect of mandatory radiology consultation on inpatient imaging use. A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  R L Bree; E A Kazerooni; S J Katz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-11-20       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  A randomized trial of spiral CT and ventilation perfusion scintigraphy for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.

Authors:  J J Cross; P M Kemp; C G Walsh; C D Flower; A K Dixon
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.350

8.  Doses to patients from routine diagnostic X-ray examinations in England.

Authors:  P C Shrimpton; B F Wall; D G Jones; E S Fisher; M C Hillier; G M Kendall; R M Harrison
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  The unbearable rightness of bedside rationing. Physician duties in a climate of cost containment.

Authors:  P A Ubel; R M Arnold
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1995-09-25

10.  Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography.

Authors:  R C Smith; A T Rosenfield; K A Choe; K R Essenmacher; M Verga; M G Glickman; R C Lange
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 11.105

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Radiologists' responses to inadequate referrals.

Authors:  Kristin Bakke Lysdahl; Bjørn Morten Hofmann; Ansgar Espeland
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Patient dose considerations in computed tomography examinations.

Authors:  Ioannis A Tsalafoutas; Georgios V Koukourakis
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2010-07-28
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.