K A Duncan1, K J Drinkwater2, N Dugar3, D C Howlett4. 1. Department of Radiology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK. Electronic address: k.duncan@nhs.net. 2. Royal College of Radiologists, London, UK. 3. Medical Imaging Department, Doncaster Royal Infirmary, Thorne Rd, Doncaster, UK. 4. Department of Radiology, Eastbourne District General Hospital, Eastbourne, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To determine the compliance of UK radiology departments and trusts/healthcare organisations with National Patient Safety Agency and Royal College of Radiologist's published guidance on the communication of critical, urgent, and unexpected significant radiological findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all UK radiology department audit leads asking for details of their current departmental policy regarding the issuing of alerts; use of automated electronic alert systems; methods of notification of clinicians of critical, urgent, and unexpected significant radiological findings; monitoring of results receipt; and examples of the more common types of serious pathologies for which alerts were issued. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-four of 229 departments (67%) responded. Eighty-eight percent indicated that they had a policy in place for the communication of critical, urgent, and unexpected significant radiological findings. Only 34% had an automated electronic alert system in place and only 17% had a facility for service-wide electronic tracking of radiology reports. In only 11 departments with an electronic acknowledgement system was someone regularly monitoring the read rate. CONCLUSION: There is wide variation in practice across the UK with regard to the communication and monitoring of reports with many departments/trusts not fully compliant with published UK guidance. Despite the widespread use of electronic systems, only a minority of departments/trusts have and use electronic tracking to ensure reports have been read and acted upon.
AIM: To determine the compliance of UK radiology departments and trusts/healthcare organisations with National Patient Safety Agency and Royal College of Radiologist's published guidance on the communication of critical, urgent, and unexpected significant radiological findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all UK radiology department audit leads asking for details of their current departmental policy regarding the issuing of alerts; use of automated electronic alert systems; methods of notification of clinicians of critical, urgent, and unexpected significant radiological findings; monitoring of results receipt; and examples of the more common types of serious pathologies for which alerts were issued. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-four of 229 departments (67%) responded. Eighty-eight percent indicated that they had a policy in place for the communication of critical, urgent, and unexpected significant radiological findings. Only 34% had an automated electronic alert system in place and only 17% had a facility for service-wide electronic tracking of radiology reports. In only 11 departments with an electronic acknowledgement system was someone regularly monitoring the read rate. CONCLUSION: There is wide variation in practice across the UK with regard to the communication and monitoring of reports with many departments/trusts not fully compliant with published UK guidance. Despite the widespread use of electronic systems, only a minority of departments/trusts have and use electronic tracking to ensure reports have been read and acted upon.