Literature DB >> 28777651

Safety-Net Academic Hospital Experience in Following Up Noncritical Yet Potentially Significant Radiologist Recommendations.

Nadja Kadom1,2, Gemma Doherty1, Alexandra Solomon3, Madison Close3, Scott Friedman1, Deborah Gregson1, Bradley S Rostad2, James M Moses1, Alexander Norbash1,4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In this retrospective study, we identified the types of noncritical recommendations radiologists issued over a 15-day period, the percentage of noncritical radiology recommendations that were not acted on or acknowledged in the medical records, potential causes for recommendations not being acted on, and the potential risk of harm to patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of radiology reports and patient records from January 1, 2014, to January 15, 2014, at a large tertiary academic center and regional safety-net hospital.
RESULTS: A total of 6851 reports were reviewed; 857 (13%) contained at least one noncritical recommendation, with 978 total recommendations. The two most common recommendations were additional imaging (63%, n = 615) and clinical correlation (23%, n = 229). The majority of radiology recommendations were followed (67%, n = 655), but 323 cases (33%) contained no evidence that recommendations were followed. Of those that were not followed, 39% (n = 126) had no documentation in the medical records of the recommendation being acknowledged. Of those, 32% (n = 40) had important findings, half of which (n = 20) could have benefited from a verbal communication (18 mass lesions, two instances of fetal death).
CONCLUSION: Radiologists' recommendations contained in written reports of noncritical findings may not be consistently followed or acknowledged in the medical records. Our study shows that a few report recommendations that were not consistently followed or acknowledged contained findings that referred to potentially harmful conditions. The results triggered an investment in systems improvement at the studied institution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  communication; noncritical results; quality; radiology; reporting; safety

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28777651     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.18179

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  1 in total

1.  Determining Follow-Up Imaging Study Using Radiology Reports.

Authors:  Sandeep Dalal; Vadiraj Hombal; Wei-Hung Weng; Gabe Mankovich; Thusitha Mabotuwana; Christopher S Hall; Joseph Fuller; Bruce E Lehnert; Martin L Gunn
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.056

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.