Yuan-Hao Lee1, Swee Tian Quek2, Pek-Lan Khong3, Cindy S Lee4, Jim S Wu5, Lei Zhang6, Kwan-Hoong Ng7,8, Seoung-Oh Yang9, Kohsuke Kudo10, Kyung-Hyun Do11, Seung Hyup Kim12, Dillon C Chen13, Amy Cheng1, Joseph Hang Leung14, Yeun-Chung Chang15, Hsian-He Hsu16, Wing P Chan1,17. 1. Department of Radiology, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China. 4. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, Garden City, New York, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Shanghai General Hospital (South Branch), Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China. 7. Department of Biomedical Imaging, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia. 8. University of Malaya Research Imaging Centre, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia. 9. Department of Radiology / Nuclear Medicine, Dongnam Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Gijang-gun, Busan, Korea. 10. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hokkaido University Hospital, SapporoHokkaido, Japan. 11. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. 12. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 13. Department of Radiology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California, USA. 14. Department of Radiology, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia-Yi Christian Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan. 15. Department of Medical Imaging, National Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan. 16. Department of Radiology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan. 17. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the status of pre-procedural safety practices in radiological examinations at radiology residency training institutions in various Asian regions. METHODS: A questionnaire based on the Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards was electronically sent to 3 institutions each in 10 geographical regions across 9 Asian countries. Questions addressing 45 practices were divided into 3 categories. A five-tier scale with numerical scores was used to evaluate safety practices in each institution. Responses obtained from three institutions in the United States were used to validate the execution rate of each surveyed safety practice. RESULTS: The institutional response rate was 70.0% (7 Asian regions, 21 institutions). 44 practices (all those surveyed except for the application of wrist tags for identifying patients with fall risks) were validated using the US participants. Overall, the Asian participants reached a consensus on 89% of the safety practices. Comparatively, most Asian participants did not routinely perform three pre-procedural practices in the examination appropriateness topic. CONCLUSION: Based on the responses from 21 participating Asian institutions, most routinely perform standard practices during radiological examinations except when it comes to examination appropriateness. This study can provide direction for safety policymakers scrutinizing and improving regional standards of care. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first multicenter survey study to elucidate pre-procedural safety practices in radiological examinations in seven Asian regions.
OBJECTIVE: To understand the status of pre-procedural safety practices in radiological examinations at radiology residency training institutions in various Asian regions. METHODS: A questionnaire based on the Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards was electronically sent to 3 institutions each in 10 geographical regions across 9 Asian countries. Questions addressing 45 practices were divided into 3 categories. A five-tier scale with numerical scores was used to evaluate safety practices in each institution. Responses obtained from three institutions in the United States were used to validate the execution rate of each surveyed safety practice. RESULTS: The institutional response rate was 70.0% (7 Asian regions, 21 institutions). 44 practices (all those surveyed except for the application of wrist tags for identifying patients with fall risks) were validated using the US participants. Overall, the Asian participants reached a consensus on 89% of the safety practices. Comparatively, most Asian participants did not routinely perform three pre-procedural practices in the examination appropriateness topic. CONCLUSION: Based on the responses from 21 participating Asian institutions, most routinely perform standard practices during radiological examinations except when it comes to examination appropriateness. This study can provide direction for safety policymakers scrutinizing and improving regional standards of care. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first multicenter survey study to elucidate pre-procedural safety practices in radiological examinations in seven Asian regions.
Authors: C Daniel Johnson; Karl N Krecke; Rafael Miranda; Catherine C Roberts; Charles Denham Journal: Radiographics Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: M Balonov; V Golikov; S Kalnitsky; I Zvonova; L Chipiga; S Sarycheva; I Shatskiy; A Vodovatov Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 0.972