Literature DB >> 28357589

Use of a Web-Based Calculator and a Structured Report Generator to Improve Efficiency, Accuracy, and Consistency of Radiology Reporting.

Alexander J Towbin1, C Matthew Hawkins2.   

Abstract

While medical calculators are common, they are infrequently used in the day-to-day radiology practice. We hypothesized that a calculator coupled with a structured report generator would decrease the time required to interpret and dictate a study in addition to decreasing the number of errors in interpretation. A web-based application was created to help radiologists calculate leg-length discrepancies. A time motion study was performed to evaluate if the calculator helped to decrease the time for interpretation and dictation of leg-length radiographs. Two radiologists each evaluated two sets of ten radiographs, one set using the traditional pen and paper method and the other set using the calculator. The time to interpret each study and the time to dictate each study were recorded. In addition, each calculation was checked for errors. When comparing the two methods of calculating the leg lengths, the manual method was significantly slower than the calculator for all time points measured: the mean time to calculate the leg-length discrepancy (131.8 vs. 59.7 s; p < 0.001), the mean time to dictate the report (31.8 vs. 11 s; p < 0.001), and the mean total time (163.7 vs. 70.7 s; p < 0.001). Reports created by the calculator were more accurate than reports created via the manual method (100 vs. 90%), although this result was not significant (p = 0.16). A calculator with a structured report generator significantly improved the time required to calculate and dictate leg-length discrepancy studies.

Keywords:  Calculator; Structured reporting; Workflow efficiency

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28357589      PMCID: PMC5603441          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-017-9967-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  17 in total

1.  Graphical user interface for a neonatal parenteral nutrition decision support system.

Authors:  R L Peverini; D S Beach; K W Wan; N R Vyhmeister
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  2000

2.  Preventing provider errors: online total parenteral nutrition calculator.

Authors:  Christoph U Lehmann; Kim G Conner; Jeanne M Cox
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 3.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the pediatric liver: imaging of steatosis, iron deposition, and fibrosis.

Authors:  Alexander J Towbin; Suraj D Serai; Daniel J Podberesky
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2013-08-09       Impact factor: 2.266

Review 4.  Computerized clinical decision support for medication prescribing and utilization in pediatrics.

Authors:  Jeremy S Stultz; Milap C Nahata
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Assessing probability of malignancy in solid solitary pulmonary nodules with a new Bayesian calculator: improving diagnostic accuracy by means of expanded and updated features.

Authors:  G A Soardi; Simone Perandini; M Motton; S Montemezzi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Assessing pediatrics residents' mathematical skills for prescribing medication: a need for improved training.

Authors:  Mark L Glover; Jeffrey B Sussmane
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  Patient safety in emergency situations: A web-based pediatric arrest medication calculator.

Authors:  Charles G Blackledge; Michael A Veltri; Carol Matlin; Wayne Sparkes; Christoph U Lehmann
Journal:  J Healthc Qual       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.095

Review 8.  Advances in oncologic imaging.

Authors:  Alexander J Towbin; Andrew T Trout; Derek J Roebuck
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 2.191

9.  Dose monitoring using the DICOM structured report: assessment of the relationship between cumulative radiation exposure and BMI in abdominal CT.

Authors:  J Boos; R S Lanzman; A Meineke; P Heusch; L M Sawicki; G Antoch; P Kröpil
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2014-12-08       Impact factor: 2.350

10.  Effect of a weight-based prescribing method within an electronic health record on prescribing errors.

Authors:  Regina Ginzburg; Wendy B Barr; Marissa Harris; Shibani Munshi
Journal:  Am J Health Syst Pharm       Date:  2009-11-15       Impact factor: 2.637

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  The state of structured reporting: the nuance of standardized language.

Authors:  Lindsey A G Shea; Alexander J Towbin
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-03-29

2.  Recall of structured radiology reports is significantly superior to that of unstructured reports.

Authors:  Bryan W Buckley; Leslie Daly; Grainne N Allen; Carole A Ridge
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Radiological Structured Report Integrated with Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers and Qualitative Scoring Systems.

Authors:  A Mañas-García; I González-Valverde; E Camacho-Ramos; A Alberich-Bayarri; J A Maldonado; M Marcos; M Robles
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 4.903

4.  Structured reporting has the potential to reduce reporting times of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry exams.

Authors:  Su Hwan Kim; Lara M Sobez; Judith E Spiro; Adrian Curta; Felix Ceelen; Eric Kampmann; Martin Goepfert; Raphael Bodensohn; Felix G Meinel; Wieland H Sommer; Nora N Sommer; Franziska Galiè
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 2.362

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.