RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: In February 2010, our radiology department adopted the use of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria for newly diagnosed oncology patients. Prior to staff used RECIST 1.1, we hypothesized that education and feedback interventions could help clarify differences between RECIST 1.0 and the newly adopted RECIST 1.1 guidelines and result in appropriate and accurate utilization of both reporting systems. This study evaluates the effect of education and feedback interventions on the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) reporting using RECIST criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive CT scan reports and images were retrospectively reviewed during three different periods to assess for compliance and adherence to RECIST guidelines. Data collected included interpreting faculty, resident, type, and total number of errors per report. Significance testing of differences between cohorts was performed using an unequal variance t-test. Group 1 (baseline): RECIST 1.0 used; prior to adoption of RECIST 1.1 criteria. Group 2 (post distributed educational materials): Following adoption of RECIST 1.1 criteria and distribution of educational materials. Group 3 (post audit and feedback): Following the audit and feedback intervention. RESULTS: The percentage of reports with errors decreased from 30% (baseline) to 28% (group 2) to 22% (group 3). Only the difference in error rate between the baseline and group 3 was significant (P = .03). CONCLUSION: The combination of distributed educational materials and audit and feedback interventions improved the quality of radiology reports requiring RECIST criteria by reducing the number of studies with errors.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: In February 2010, our radiology department adopted the use of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria for newly diagnosed oncology patients. Prior to staff used RECIST 1.1, we hypothesized that education and feedback interventions could help clarify differences between RECIST 1.0 and the newly adopted RECIST 1.1 guidelines and result in appropriate and accurate utilization of both reporting systems. This study evaluates the effect of education and feedback interventions on the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) reporting using RECIST criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive CT scan reports and images were retrospectively reviewed during three different periods to assess for compliance and adherence to RECIST guidelines. Data collected included interpreting faculty, resident, type, and total number of errors per report. Significance testing of differences between cohorts was performed using an unequal variance t-test. Group 1 (baseline): RECIST 1.0 used; prior to adoption of RECIST 1.1 criteria. Group 2 (post distributed educational materials): Following adoption of RECIST 1.1 criteria and distribution of educational materials. Group 3 (post audit and feedback): Following the audit and feedback intervention. RESULTS: The percentage of reports with errors decreased from 30% (baseline) to 28% (group 2) to 22% (group 3). Only the difference in error rate between the baseline and group 3 was significant (P = .03). CONCLUSION: The combination of distributed educational materials and audit and feedback interventions improved the quality of radiology reports requiring RECIST criteria by reducing the number of studies with errors.
Authors: Anne-Claire Toffart; Denis Moro-Sibilot; Sébastien Couraud; Patrick Merle; Maurice Perol; Nicolas Girard; Pierre-Jean Souquet; Bénédicte Mastroianni; Gilbert R Ferretti; Philippe Romand; Patrick Chatellain; Aurélien Vesin; Elisabeth Brambilla; Christian Brambilla; Jean-François Timsit Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-12-20 Impact factor: 4.430