Literature DB >> 20852960

Clinical Risk Management in radiology. Part II: applied examples and concluding remarks.

M Centonze1, D Visconti, S Doratiotto, R Silverio, A Fileni, L Pescarini, R Golfieri.   

Abstract

With the aim of providing a clearer understanding of the tools used for evaluating risk in the radiological setting and how they are applied, this second part presents two practical examples. The first is a proactive analysis applied to CT, whereas the second is a reactive analysis performed following a sentinel event triggered by a CT study allocated to the wrong patient in the RIS-PACS system.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2010        PMID： 20852960     DOI： 10.1007/s11547-010-0579-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Med        ISSN： 0033-8362            Impact factor:   3.469


  18 in total

1.  Liability of interpreting too many radiographs.

Authors:  L Berlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Assessment of the appropriateness of requested radiological examinations for outpatients and the potential financial consequences of guideline application.

Authors:  I Van Breuseghem; E Geusens
Journal:  JBR-BTR       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb

3.  Radiology reporting--where does the radiologist's duty end?

Authors:  Conall J Garvey; Sylvia Connolly
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-02-04       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  The NHS's 50 anniversary. Clinical governance and the drive for quality improvement in the new NHS in England.

Authors:  G Scally; L J Donaldson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-07-04

5.  Adult renal hamartomas.

Authors:  B J Wagner; J J Wong-You-Cheong; C J Davis
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  1997 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.333

6.  Angiomyolipoma of the kidney. Comparison between magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and ultrasonography for diagnosis.

Authors:  D Uhlenbrock; C Fischer; H K Beyer
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  1988 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.990

Review 7.  Communication at times of transitions: how to help patients cope with loss and re-define hope.

Authors:  Wendy G Evans; James A Tulsky; Anthony L Back; Robert M Arnold
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.360

8.  Angiomyolipoma: computed tomographic-pathologic correlation of 17 cases.

Authors:  J L Sherman; D S Hartman; A C Friedman; J E Madewell; C J Davis; S M Goldman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1981-12       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from renal cell carcinoma at biphasic helical CT.

Authors:  Jeong Kon Kim; Soo-Youn Park; Jeong-Hee Shon; Kyoung-Sik Cho
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Design, implementation, and assessment of a radiology workflow management system.

Authors:  Mark J Halsted; Craig M Froehle
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.959
View more
  3 in total

1.  RIS-PACS, patient safety, and clinical risk management.

Authors:  Andrea Nitrosi; Marco Bertolini; Roberto Sghedoni; Pietro Notari; Pierpaolo Pattacini; Andrea Corazza; Mauro Iori
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Efficiency and effectiveness of an innovative RIS function for patient information reconciliation directly integrated with PACS.

Authors:  Andrea Nitrosi; Marco Bertolini; Pietro Notari; Andrea Botti; Vladimiro Ginocchi; Giulio Tondelli; Mauro Iori; Pierpaolo Pattacini
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Risk management in magnetic resonance: failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis.

Authors:  Antonella Petrillo; Roberta Fusco; Vincenza Granata; Salvatore Filice; Nicola Raiano; Daniela Maria Amato; Maria Zirpoli; Alessandro di Finizio; Mario Sansone; Anna Russo; Eugenio Maria Covelli; Tonino Pedicini; Maria Triassi
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 3.411
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.