Literature DB >> 29417357

Emergency medicine summary code for reporting CT scan results: implementation and survey results.

Joanne Lam1, Ryan Coughlin2, Luce Buhl3, Meghan Herbst4, Timothy Herbst3, Jared Martillotti3, Bret Coughlin3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to assess the emergency department (ED) providers' interest and satisfaction with ED CT result reporting before and after the implementation of a standardized summary code for all CT scan reporting.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A summary code was provided at the end of all CTs ordered through the ED from August to October of 2016. A retrospective review was completed on all studies performed during this period. A pre- and post-survey was given to both ED and radiology providers.
RESULTS: A total of 3980 CT scans excluding CTAs were ordered with 2240 CTs dedicated to the head and neck, 1685 CTs dedicated to the torso, and 55 CTs dedicated to the extremities. Approximately 74% CT scans were contrast enhanced. Of the 3980 ED CT examination ordered, 69% had a summary code assigned to it. Fifteen percent of the coded CTs had a critical or diagnostic positive result.
CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of an ED CT summary code did not show a definitive improvement in communication. However, the ED providers are in consensus that radiology reports are crucial their patients' management. There is slightly increased satisfaction with the providers with less than 5 years of experience with the ED CT codes compared to more seasoned providers. The implementation of a user-friendly summary code may allow better analysis of results, practice improvement, and quality measurements in the future.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CT; Reporting system; Reporting template; Standardized reporting; Structured reporting

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29417357     DOI: 10.1007/s10140-018-1583-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Radiol        ISSN: 1070-3004


  7 in total

1.  Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting.

Authors:  Lawrence H Schwartz; David M Panicek; Alexandra R Berk; Yuelin Li; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-04-25       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare?

Authors:  David L Weiss; Curtis P Langlotz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  State of structured reporting in radiology, a survey.

Authors:  Daniel K Powell; James E Silberzweig
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-10-23       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Improving consistency in radiology reporting through the use of department-wide standardized structured reporting.

Authors:  David B Larson; Alex J Towbin; Rebecca M Pryor; Lane F Donnelly
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  New OPTN/UNOS policy for liver transplant allocation: standardization of liver imaging, diagnosis, classification, and reporting of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Christoph Wald; Mark W Russo; Julie K Heimbach; Hero K Hussain; Elizabeth A Pomfret; Jordi Bruix
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  The ACR BI-RADS experience: learning from history.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Edward A Sickles; Lawrence W Bassett; Daniel L Rubin; Carol H Lee; Debra M Ikeda; Ellen B Mendelson; Pamela A Wilcox; Priscilla F Butler; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 5.532

7.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Jonathan Richenberg; Richard Clements; Peter Choyke; Sadhna Verma; Geert Villeirs; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Logager; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.