Determination and communication of critical findings in neuroradiology

Radiologic reporting of MRI-proven thoracolumbar epidural metastases on body CT: 12-Year single-institution experience

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Metastatic epidural masses are an important radiological finding. The purpose of this study is to determine factors associated with non-reporting of thoracolumbar epidural metastases on body CT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a study population of 166 patients from a single institution over a 12-year period, 293 body CT examinations were identified which were performed within 30 days before or after a spine MRI diagnosis of epidural metastasis. Associations were sought between patient diagnosis, CT examination characteristics, reporting radiologist (n = 17), and lesion characteristics with respect to whether an epidural metastasis was reported on CT.

RESULTS

In retrospective consensus review comprised of 3 radiologists, epidural metastases reported on spine MRI were clearly visible in 80.5% (236/293) of body CT examinations, however 65.3% (154/236) of the body CT reports omitted reporting their presence, even in cases where there was a preceding MRI diagnosis within 30 days (65.4%, 74/113). The identity of the reporting radiologist was statistically significantly associated with the accurate diagnostic reporting of epidural metastasis on body CT (p = 0.04). The only lesion features which were statistically significantly associated with CT reporting were lesion volume (p = 0.03) on noncontrast CT, and lesion volume (p = 0.006) and percentage of spinal canal stenosis (p = 0.001) on intravenous contrast-enhanced CT. The presence or absence of intravenous contrast was not significantly associated with CT reporting (p = 1.0).

CONCLUSION

Using spine MRI as the reference standard for the presence of epidural tumor, the majority of body CT reports omit describing thoracolumbar epidural metastases which are clearly visible in retrospect.

Contextual Structured Reporting in Radiology: Implementation and Long-Term Evaluation in Improving the Communication of Critical Findings

Structured reporting contributes to the completeness of radiology reports and improves quality. Both the content and the structure are essential for successful implementation of structured reporting. Contextual structured reporting is tailored to a specific scenario and can contain information retrieved from the context. Critical findings detected by imaging need urgent communication to the referring physician. According to guidelines, the occurrence of this communication should be documented in the radiology reports and should contain when, to whom and how was communicated. In free-text reporting, one or more of these required items might be omitted. We developed a contextual structured reporting template to ensure complete documentation of the communication of critical findings. The WHEN and HOW items were included automatically, and the insertion of the WHO-item was facilitated by the template. A pre- and post-implementation study demonstrated a substantial improvement in guideline adherence. The template usage improved in the long-term post-implementation study compared with the short-term results. The two most often occurring categories of critical findings are “infection / inflammation” and “oncology”, corresponding to the a large part of urgency level 2 (to be reported within 6 h) and level 3 (to be reported within 6 days), respectively. We conclude that contextual structured reporting is feasible for required elements in radiology reporting and for automated insertion of context-dependent data. Contextual structured reporting improves guideline adherence for communication of critical findings.

Impact of an educational initiative targeting non-radiologist staff on overall notification times of critical findings in radiology

INTRODUCTION

The timely reporting of critical findings is considered by the Joint Commission as one of the main patient safety goals. Delays in critical radiological findings communication are directly related to delayed treatment initiation and death, constituting a major cause of medical malpractice suits. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an educational initiative performed to reduce the notification times of critical radiological findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All records of critical findings reported in the Radiology Department were evaluated. The notification times before and after performing the educational intervention taking into account the patient type, study, and critical diagnosis were calculated, evaluated, and compared. T test and chi-square test were used for statistical analysis, considering a p value less than 0.05 to indicate statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

We included 1949 reports, 805 before (41.3%) and 1144 (58.7%) after the intervention. Before the intervention, the mean time of critical finding report was 2.85 h for emergency patients and 3.07 h for hospitalized patients. After the intervention, a statistically significant decrease in the notification time was observed with a mean of 1.37 h for emergency patients and 2.43 h in the hospitalization patients. A statistically significant increase was observed in the proportion of reported findings in less than 15 min (7.08%, p < 0.01), 45 min (45.55%, p < 0.01), 60 min (55.86%, p < 0.01), and 120 min (80.68%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The healthcare process in the Department of Radiology involves multiple actors who must be sensitized in the identification and reporting of critical radiological findings in order to reduce the notification times. Ensuring effective communication of critical findings is indispensable to ensure timely medical treatment.

Healthcare professionals’ moral distress in adult palliative care: a systematic review

Objectives

Palliative care providers may be exposed to numerous detrimental psychological and existential challenges. Ethical issues in the healthcare arena are subject to continual debate, being fuelled with ongoing medical, technological and legal advancements. This work aims to systematically review studies addressing the moral distress experienced by healthcare professionals who provide adult palliative care.

Methods

A literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases, searching for the terms ‘moral distress’ AND ‘palliative care’. The review process has followed the international PRISMA statement guidelines.

Results

The initial search identified 248 papers and 10 of them were considered eligible. Four main areas were identified: (1) personal factors, (2) patients and caregivers, (3) colleagues and superiors and (4) environment and organisation. Managing emotions of self and others, witnessing sufferance and disability, caring for highly demanding patients and caregivers, as well as poor communication were identified as distressing. Moreover, the relationship with colleagues and superiors, and organisational constraints often led to actions which contravened personal values invoking moral distress. The authors also summarised some supportive and preventive recommendations including self-empowerment, communication improvement, management of emotions and specific educational programmes for palliative care providers. A holistic model of moral distress in adult palliative care (integrating emotional, cognitive, behavioural and organisational factors) was also proposed.

Conclusions

Cognisance of risk and protective factors associated with the moral distress phenomenon may help reframe palliative healthcare systems, enabling effective and tailored actions that safeguard the well-being of providers, and consequently enhance patient care.

Reshaping Radiology Precall Preparation: Integrating a Cloud-Based PACS Viewer Into a Flipped Classroom Model

Preparing residents for the on-call experience in Radiology is one of the most important aspects of education within a training program. Traditionally, this preparation has occurred via a combination of case conferences and didactic lectures by program faculty, daily teaching at the workstation, and precall assessments. Recently, a blended curricular model referred to as the flipped classroom has generated a lot of attention within the realm of graduate medical education. We applied this technique to resident precall education in the subspecialty of Neuroradiology, and surveyed the participants about their perceptions of the course. The structure, implementation, and web-based platform used to create the flipped classroom experience is described herein.

Critical Findings: Attempts at Reducing Notification Errors

PURPOSE

Ineffective communication of critical findings (CFs) is a patient safety issue. The aim of this study was to assess whether a feedback program for faculty members failing to correctly report CFs would lead to improved compliance.

METHODS

Fifty randomly selected reports were reviewed by the chief of neuroradiology each month for 42 months. Errors included (1) not calling for a CF, (2) not identifying a CF as such, (3) mischaracterizing non-CFs as CFs, and (4) calling for non-CFs. The number of appropriately handled and mishandled reports in each month was recorded. The trend of error reduction after the division chief provided feedback in the subsequent months was evaluated, and the equality of time interval between errors was tested.

RESULTS

Among 2,100 reports, 49 (2.3%) were handled inappropriately. Among non-CF reports, 98.97% (1,817 of 1,836) were appropriately not called and not flagged, and 88.64% (234 of 264) of CF reports were called and flagged appropriately. The error rate during the 11th through 32nd months of review (1.28%) was significantly lower than the error rate in the first 10 months of review (3.98%) (P = .001). This benefit lasted for 21 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Review and giving feedback to radiologists increased their compliance with the CF protocol and decreased deviations from standard operating procedures for about 2 years (from month 10 to month 32). Developing new ideas for improving CF policy compliance may be required at 2- to 3-year intervals to provide continuous quality improvement.

Opportunities for Targeted Education: Critical Neuroradiologic Findings Missed or Misinterpreted by Residents and Fellows

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed neuroradiology cases in which a resident or fellow missed a significant finding, to identify potential areas of deficiency that could be strengthened through targeted education.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Included in the study were all neuroradiology reports from 2011 through 2013 that were marked with an electronic flag to indicate a significant modification between the preliminary and final versions. The reports were examined to determine whether a critical finding (CF) or a non-CF was missed, with the use of a hospital-approved list of 17 neuroradiology CFs. Results were analyzed for all trainees.

RESULTS

A total of 978 modified reports were found among reports from 225,628 neuroradiology examinations. Of these modified reports, 891 (91.1%) contained an addendum that identified the discrepancy: 658 (73.8%) contained a CF,192 (21.7%) contained a non-CF, and 41 (4.6%) were changed from containing a CF to not containing a CF. A total of 725 missed CFs were found in the 658 modified reports. The CF miss rate for all trainees was 6.0% (95% CI, 5.6-6.4%), whereas that for residents was 8.6% and that for fellows was 4.8%. Residents missed hydrocephalus, intracranial pressure or edema, new hemorrhage, and new infarction more frequently than did fellows. The five most frequently missed CFs were congenital variation, infection, misplaced hardware, a new or enlarging mass, and vascular abnormality.

CONCLUSION

Our trainees' overall CF miss rate was 6.0%. Five CFs had miss rates of approximately 10% or more, and residents missed four of the CFs more frequently than did fellows. With the use of these data, our curriculum could potentially be strengthened and our trainee error rates decreased, leading to improved patient care.

Critical findings: timing of notification in neuroradiology

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Timely reporting of critical findings in radiology has been identified by The Joint Commission as one of the National Patient Safety Goals. Our aim was to determine the magnitude of delays between identifying a neuroradiologic critical finding and verbally notifying the caregiver in an effort to improve clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We surveyed the time of critical finding discovery, attempted notification, and direct communication between neuroradiologists and caregivers for weekday, evening, overnight, and weekend shifts during an 8-week period. The data were collected by trained observers and/or trainees and included 13 neuroradiology attendings plus fellows and residents. Critical findings were based on a previously approved 17-item list. Summary and comparative t test statistics were calculated, and sources of delays were identified.

RESULTS

Ninety-one critical findings were recorded. The mean time from study acquisition to critical finding discovery was 62.2 minutes, from critical finding discovery to call made 3.7 minutes, and from call made to direct communication, 5.2 minutes. The overall time from critical finding discovery to caregiver notification was within 10 minutes in 72.5% (66/91) and 15 minutes in 93.4% (85/91) of cases. There were no significant differences across shifts except for daytime versus overnight and weekend shifts, when means were 2.4, 5.6, and 8.7 minutes, respectively (P < .01). If >1 physician was called, the mean notification time increased from 3.5 to 10.1 minutes (P < .01). Sources of delays included inaccurate contact information, physician unavailability (shift change/office closed), patient transfer to a different service, or lack of responsiveness from caregivers.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct communication with the responsible referring physician occurred consistently within 10-15 minutes after observation of a critical finding. These delays are less than the average interval from study acquisition to critical finding discovery (mean, 62.2 minutes).

Continuous practice quality improvement initiative for communication of critical findings in neuroradiology

The authors examined faculty's compliance with a hospital-approved neuroradiology critical findings (CFs) policy, which requires urgent verbal communication with the clinical team when 17 specific critical pathologies are identified. During June 2011 to July 2013, 50 random neuroradiology reports were sampled monthly for the presence of CFs and appropriate action. Faculty were provided ongoing feedback, and at the end of 2 years, the medical records for cases with noncommunicated CFs were reviewed to identify potential adverse outcomes. Of the 1200 reviewed reports, 195 (16.3%) had and 1005 (83.8%) did not have a CF. A total of 176 of 195 (90.3%) cases with CFs were communicated, and compliance increased from 77.4% to 85.6% (P = .027) since the monthly sampling was instituted; 1 of 19 (5.3%) noncommunicated CFs resulted in a potential adverse event. The ongoing monthly feedback resulted in improved faculty compliance with the CF policy. However, a small number of cases with CFs are still not being communicated.