Literature DB >> 11977945

Assessment of radiological referral practice and effect of computer-based guidelines on radiological requests in two emergency departments.

Matthieu Carton1, Bertran Auvert, Henri Guerini, Jean-Christophe Boulard, Jean-Francois Heautot, Marie-France Landre, Alain Beauchet, Marc Sznajderi, Dominique Brun-Ney, Sophie Chagnon.   

Abstract

AIM: To assess medical emergency radiology referral practice compared with a set of French guidelines and to measure the efficiency of computer-based guidelines on unnecessary medical imaging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All radiological requests were computerized in the medical emergency departments of two French teaching hospitals. During control periods, radiological requests were recorded but no action was taken. During intervention periods, reminder displays on screen indicated the appropriate recommendations. Three control and three intervention periods of 1 month each were conducted. The percentage of requests that did not conform to the guidelines and variation related to periods of control and intervention were measured.
RESULTS: The proportion of requests that did not conform to the guidelines was 33.2% when the guidelines were inactive and decreased to 26.9% when the recommendations were active (P < 0.0001). The three imaging examinations (chest radiographs, abdominal plain radiographs and CT of the brain) accounted for more than 80% of all requests; more than 50% of abdominal plain radiographs requests did not conform with recommendations while this percentage was respectively 24.9% and 15.8% for chest radiographs and computed tomography (CT) of the brain. Seven situations accounted for 70% of non-conforming radiological referrals; in these situations, junior practitioners' knowledge was inadequate.
CONCLUSION: While the computer provided advice that was tailored to the needs of individual patients, concurrent with care, the effect of our intervention was weak. However, our study identified the few situations that were responsible for the majority of unnecessary radiological requests; we expect that this result could help clinicians and radiologists to develop more specific actions for these situations. Copyright 2002 The Royal College of Radiologists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11977945     DOI: 10.1053/crad.2001.0827

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Radiol        ISSN: 0009-9260            Impact factor:   2.350


  12 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

Review 2.  The impact of computerized provider order entry systems on medical-imaging services: a systematic review.

Authors:  Andrew Georgiou; Mirela Prgomet; Andrew Markewycz; Edwina Adams; Johanna I Westbrook
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Too much of a good thing is wonderful? A conceptual analysis of excessive examinations and diagnostic futility in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2010-05

4.  Do family physicians request ultrasound scans appropriately?

Authors:  Bret A Landry; David Barnes; Valerie Keough; Adrienne Watson; Judy Rowe; Amy Mallory; Mohamed Abdolell
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 5.  Effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce the use of imaging for low-back pain: a systematic review.

Authors:  Hazel J Jenkins; Mark J Hancock; Simon D French; Chris G Maher; Roger M Engel; John S Magnussen
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Impact of IT-enabled intervention on MRI use for back pain.

Authors:  Ivan K Ip; Esteban F Gershanik; Louise I Schneider; Ali S Raja; Wenhong Mar; Steven Seltzer; Michael J Healey; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2014-02-08       Impact factor: 4.965

7.  Justification of CT examinations in young adults and children can be improved by education, guideline implementation and increased MRI capacity.

Authors:  P Tahvonen; H Oikarinen; E Pääkkö; A Karttunen; R Blanco Sequeiros; O Tervonen
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-08-09       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 8.  The effectiveness of computerized clinical guidelines in the process of care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Gianfranco Damiani; Luigi Pinnarelli; Simona C Colosimo; Roberta Almiento; Lorella Sicuro; Rocco Galasso; Lorenzo Sommella; Walter Ricciardi
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-01-04       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Effectiveness of electronic guideline-based implementation systems in ambulatory care settings - a systematic review.

Authors:  Annemie Heselmans; Stijn Van de Velde; Peter Donceel; Bert Aertgeerts; Dirk Ramaekers
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2009-12-30       Impact factor: 7.327

Review 10.  Systematic review of clinical decision support interventions with potential for inpatient cost reduction.

Authors:  Christopher L Fillmore; Bruce E Bray; Kensaku Kawamoto
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-12-17       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.