Quality of radiologists' communication with other clinicians--As experienced by radiologists

The radiologist as an independent "third party" to the patient and clinicians in the era of generative AI

Radiologists are crucial in the diagnostic workflow. They must maintain an independent perspective, being a "third party" to the patients and referral clinicians. This is important when documenting the absence of relevant abnormalities or providing information that contradicts the self-reported symptoms and/or the impression of the colleagues, as well as in the case of incidental findings that impact patient management. Appropriate communication is the outcome of this professional independence, becoming more and more important in the current era of application of generative artificial intelligence to the radiological world. In fact, while radiological reports could be improved by our smart use of large language models, patients are already using such tools to understand their meaning and practical implications.

Comparing radiologists and radiographers' assessment of MRI referrals for low back pain: Insights from two imaging centres in Norway

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the differences in MRI referral assessments for low back pain (LBP) between radiologists and in-house trained radiographers.

METHODS

This is the second part of a retrospective study where MRI referrals for LBP conducted within two imaging centres in Norway were assessed for justification and referral quality. This study examines differences in how the recruited assessors (four radiologists and two radiographers) evaluated the referrals. The collected data was sorted in Microsoft Excel version 2021. Stata Statistical Software (Release 18) was used for data analysis. Mixed model analysis was used to compare the radiographers and radiologists' assessment of justification and referral quality. Gwet's agreement coefficient AC1/AC2 was used to determine the variation of agreements between the assessors in justification, and Gwet's AC2 between the assessor in referral quality. Kappa statistics was used to assess the interrater reliability between the two professions. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total n = 300 patients' MRI referrals for LBP from the two imaging centres were collected and assessed. The two radiographers and one radiologist assessed 75 % of the referrals as justified, while the other radiologists had an overall justification rate ranging from 50 to 60 %. In general, radiographers more frequently assigned referrals as being of good and intermediate quality compared to radiologists. The study showed a statistically significant difference (p < .001) between radiographers and radiologists 'assessment of justification and quality of MRI referrals for LBP.

CONCLUSION

Radiographers assessed a higher proportion of referrals as justified and of good quality compared to radiologists, highlighting the need for targeted training to enhance radiographers' referral assessment skills.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Radiographers are assigned tasks to justify imaging in radiology departments; however, targeted training is essential to ensure consistent and accurate referral assessments, ultimately enhancing patient care and optimising the use of resources.

The radiographers' opinion on assessing radiological referrals

INTRODUCTION

Radiographers have a fundamental duty to assess radiological referrals and ensure imaging is justified. This study constitutes the third part of a broader research on radiographers' assessment of referrals. The study examines the opinions of radiographers on the matter, as articulated in their own words.

METHODS

A questionnaire with closed and open-ended questions was designed, validated, and distributed to radiographers following activities organised by the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT). This third part covers the participants' free-text comments about radiographers' assessment of referrals. Qualitative, inductive content analysis was used to report findings involving three phases: 1) Preparation, 2) Organisation where two authors individually coded and categorised the emerged themes, and 3) Reporting, were the authors compared, reviewed, and defined the meanings of the themes and sub-themes.

RESULTS

Five main themes Opportunity, Competency, Work environment, Role perception and Significance emerged, shaped as descriptive, normative, and prospective statements. In opportunities the respondents (descriptively) depicted the importance of their position and challenges faced, including lack of adequate clinical information in referrals. Competencies concerned whether they have the required knowledge and skills for the task. In work environment the respondents viewed themselves as partners and collaborators with radiologists and referrers but expressed that unclear regulations could challenge their task. In role perception, the respondents expressed (normatively) that assessing referrals is vital for professional self-esteem and radiographers' responsibility. Significance covers the importance of assessing referrals for different aspects relating to quality of services.

CONCLUSION

Radiographers expressed high engagement towards tasks of assessing referrals. To support radiographers in this role, it is crucial to establish clear regulations, better organisation of departmental processes and provide adequate training.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Radiology departments should actively explore strategies of incorporating the radiographers' resources and core position in the process of assessing referrals, in a consistent and effective manner.

Structured request form in musculoskeletal radiology examinations (CONCERTO): results of an expert Delphi consensus-structured radiology request form for correct classification of patients to undergo radiological examinations of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), the Italian Society of Rheumatology (SIR) and the Italian Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology (SIOT)

PURPOSE

To describe a Delphi consensus for the realization of a structured radiology request form for patients undergoing musculoskeletal imaging.

METHODS

A steering committee (four radiologists, a rheumatologist and an orthopedic surgeon) proposed a form to an expert panel (30 members, ten radiologists, ten rheumatologists and ten orthopedic surgeons). Through an online survey, the panelists voted on their level of agreement with the statements of the form using a 10-point Likert scale (1: no agreement; 10: total agreement) in a three-round process. A combination of two distinct criteria, a mean agreement level ≥ 8 and a percentage of at least 75% of responses with a value ≥ 8, was deemed as acceptable.

RESULTS

The form achieved high median ratings in all the assessed key features. During the first round, all items met the threshold to be advanced as unmodified in the next round. Additional proposed items were considered and introduced in the next round (six items in Section 1, five items in Section 2, ten items in Section 3, 11 items in Section 4, six items in Section 5, eight items in Section 6, ten items in Section 7 and eight items in Section 8). Of these items, in round 3, only six reached the threshold to be integrated into the final form.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a structured radiology request form can improve appropriateness and collaboration between clinicians and radiologists in musculoskeletal imaging.

Impact of point-of-care clinical decision support on referrer behavior, imaging volume, patient radiation dose exposure, and sustainability

OBJECTIVES

When referring patients to radiology, it is important that the most appropriate test is chosen to avoid inappropriate imaging that may lead to delayed diagnosis, unnecessary radiation dose, worse patient outcome, and poor patient experience. The current radiology appropriateness guidance standard at our institution is via access to a standalone web-based clinical decision support tool (CDST). A point-of-care (POC) CDST that incorporates guidance directly into the physician workflow was implemented within a subset of head and neck cancer specialist referrers. The purpose of this audit was to evaluate the imaging pathway, pre- and post-implementation to assess changes in referral behavior.

METHODS

CT and MRI neck data were collected retrospectively to examine the relationship between imaging referrals pre- and post-POC CDST implementation. Effective radiation dose and estimated carbon emissions were also compared.

RESULTS

There was an overall reduction in absolute advanced imaging volume by 8.2%, and a reduction in duplicate CT and MRI imaging by 61%, p < 0.0001. There was also a shift in ordering behavior in favor of MRI (OR [95% CI] = 1.50 [1.02-2.22], p = 0.049). These changes resulted in an effective radiation dose reduction of 0.27 mSv per patient, or 13 equivalent chest x-rays saved per patient, p < 0.0001. Additionally, the reduction in unnecessary duplicate imaging led to a 13.5% reduction in carbon emissions, p = 0.0002.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the POC CDST resulted in a significant impact on advanced imaging volume, saved effective dose, and reduction in carbon emissions.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The implementation of a point-of-care clinical decision support tool may reduce multimodality ordering and advanced imaging volume, manifesting in reduced effective dose per patient and reduced estimated carbon emissions. Widespread utilization of the point-of-care clinical decision support tool has the potential to reduce imaging wait times.

KEY POINTS

• Implementation of the point-of-care clinical decision support tool reduced the number of patients who simultaneously had a CT and MRI ordered for the same clinical indication compared to a standalone web-based clinical decision support tool. • The point-of-care clinical decision support tool reduced the absolute number of CT/MRI scans requested compared to the standalone web-based clinical decision support tool. • Utilization of the point-of-care clinical decision support tool led to a significant reduction in the effective dose per patient compared to the standalone web-based clinical decision support tool.

Radiographers' experiences and educational needs in relation to caring for suicidal patients during radiology examinations

INTRODUCTION

Researchers have explored the experiences, attitudes, and educational needs of several healthcare professional groups in relation to caring for suicidal patients. However, radiographers have not been included in these studies. Radiographers are likely to encounter these patients when they present for diagnostic imaging following suicide attempts.

METHODS

An online questionnaire exploring radiographers' experiences and educational needs in caring for suicidal patients was circulated to radiographers working in 23 acute hospitals across Ireland and posted to a Facebook page targeting Irish-based radiographers. Closed-ended questions were used to capture respondents' demographics and five-point Likert scale questions to establish their confidence levels in imaging suicidal patients. Open-ended questions were used to explore their experiences and educational needs. Quantitative data was analysed using descriptives statistics, and qualitative data thematically analysed.

RESULTS

One hundred and four radiographers responded to the questionnaire, 96% of whom had imaged suicidal patients. Radiographers were confident in justifying and optimising these radiographic examinations, however, less confident in communicating with and caring for these patients. Radiographers reported insufficient patient history on imaging referrals and challenges in communicating with suicidal patients, which many attributed to lack of training. Radiographers expressed interest in further education related to caring for patients who've attempted suicide, which they felt should include an introduction to psychiatry, strategies for communicating with suicidal patients and building resilience.

CONCLUSION

Radiographers' experiences of imaging suicidal patients have been reported along with several challenges which could be addressed through further education.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Further education in caring for suicidal patients should be offered to radiographers which aligns with their educational needs. Referring clinicians should be reminded of the importance of informing radiographers of patients' suicide attempt when referring them for diagnostic imaging.

Challenges in Interpretation of US Breast Findings in the Emergency Setting

Emergencies in breast imaging are infrequent but not rare. Although infectious conditions such as mastitis and breast abscess are the most common breast diseases encountered in acute care settings, other entities that may require additional imaging or different treatment approaches are also seen and include traumatic injury and breast cancer. While mammography is widely available for breast evaluation in outpatient facilities, most emergency departments do not have mammography units. This makes evaluation of patients with breast disease incomplete in the acute care setting and emphasizes the role of appropriate US techniques for interpretation. It also highlights the importance of effective sonographer-to-radiologist communication to ensure patient safety and diagnostic accuracy, especially in an era of increasing adoption of teleradiology. The authors discuss the challenges in image acquisition and remote interpretation that are commonly faced by radiologists when they assess breast anomalies in the emergency setting. They present strategies to overcome these challenges by describing techniques for proper US evaluation, highlighting the importance of sonographer-radiologist communication, defining the goals of the evaluation, reviewing common differential diagnoses, and providing appropriate follow-up recommendations. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Ethical impact of suboptimal referrals on delivery of care in radiology department

The referral is the key source of information that enables radiologists and radiographers to provide quality services. However, the frequency of suboptimal referrals is widely reported. This research reviews the literature to illuminate the challenges suboptimal referrals present to the delivery of care in radiology departments. The concept of suboptimal referral includes information, that is; missing, insufficient, inconsistent, misleading, hard to interpret or wrong. The research uses the four ethical principles of non-maleficence, beneficence, Autonomy and Justice as an analytic framework.Suboptimal referrals can cause harm by hindering safe contrast-media administration, proper radiation protection by justification of procedures, and compassionate patient care. Suboptimal referrals also hinder promoting patient benefits from the correct choice of imaging modality and protocol, an optimal performed examination, and an accurate radiology report. Additionally, patient autonomy is compromised from the lack of information needed to facilitate benefit-risk communication. Finally, suboptimal referrals challenge justice based on lack of reasonable patient prioritising and the unfairness caused by unnecessary examinations.These findings illuminate how suboptimal referrals can inhibit good health and well-being for patients in relation to safety, missed opportunities, patient anxiety and dissatisfaction. The ethical challenges identified calls for solutions. Referral-decision support tools and artificial intelligence may improve referral quality, when implemented. Strategies addressing efforts of radiology professionals are inevitable, including gatekeeping, shared decision-making and inter-professional communication; thereby raising awareness of the importance of good referral quality and promoting commitment to ethical professional conduct.

Imaging intensive care patients: multidisciplinary conferences as a quality improvement initiative to reduce medical error

Background

Strategies to identify imaging-related error and minimise its consequences are important in the management of critically ill patients. A new quality management (QM) initiative for radiological examinations has been implemented in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting. In regular multidisciplinary conferences (MDCs), radiologists and ICU physicians re-evaluate recent examinations. Structured bilateral feedback is provided to identify errors early. This study aims at investigating its impact on the occurrence of QM events (imaging-related errors). Standardised protocols of all MDCs from 1st of June 2018 through 31st of December 2019 were analysed with regard to categories of QM events (i.e. indication, procedure, report) and resulting consequences.

Results

We analysed 241 MDCs with a total of 973 examinations. 14.0% (n = 136/973) of examinations were affected by QM events. The majority of events were report-related (76.3%, n = 106/139, e.g. misinterpreted finding), followed by procedure-related (18.0%, n = 25/139, e.g. technical issue) and indication-related events (5.8%, n = 8/139, e.g. faulty indication). The median time until identification of a QM event (time to MDC) was 2 days (interquartile range = 2). Comparing the first to the second half of the intervention period, the incidence of QM events decreased significantly from 22.9% (n = 109/476) to 6.0% (n = 30/497) (p < 0.0001). Significance of this effect was confirmed by linear regression (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Establishing structured discussion and feedback between radiologists and intensive care physicians in the form of MDCs is associated with a statistically significant reduction in QM events. These results indicate that MDCs may be one suitable approach to timely identify imaging-related error.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-022-01313-5.

Collaboration Between Physicians from Different Medical Specialties in Hospital Settings: A Systematic Review

Health care today is characterized by an increasing number of patients with comorbidities for whom interphysician collaboration seems very important. We reviewed the literature to understand what factors affect interphysician collaboration, determine how interphysician collaboration is measured, and determine its effects. We systematically searched six major databases. Based on 63 articles, we identified five categories that influence interphysician collaboration: personal factors, professional factors, preconditions and tools, organizational elements, and contextual characteristics. We identified a diverse set of mostly unvalidated tools for measuring interphysician collaboration that focus on information being transferred and understood, frequency of interaction and tone of the relationship, and value judgements about quality or satisfaction. We found that interphysician collaboration increased clinical outcomes as well as patient and staff satisfaction, while error rates and length of stay were reduced. The results should, however, be interpreted with caution, as most of the studies provide a low level of evidence.

IMPACT (Information Medically Pertinent in Acute Computed Tomography) requests: Delphi study to develop criteria standards for adequate clinical information in computed tomography requests in the Australian emergency department

INTRODUCTION

Inadequate clinical information in medical imaging requests negatively affects the clinical relevance of imaging performed and the quality of resultant radiology reports. Currently, there are no published Australian guidelines on what constitutes adequate clinical information in computed tomography (CT) requests. This study aimed to determine specific items of clinical information radiologists require in CT requests for acute chest, abdomen and blunt trauma examinations, to support optimal reporting.

METHODS

A panel of 24 CT-reporting consultant radiologists participated in this e-Delphi consensus study. Panellists undertook multiple online survey rounds of open-ended, dichotomous and Likert scale questions, receiving feedback following each. Round 1 responses formulated lists for each CT examination. Round 2 set a threshold of 80% agreement after dichotomous scoring. Round 3 accepted items which averaged 4 or more on a 5-point Likert scale. Round 4 required panellists to rank items within the aggregated, accepted lists, based on panellists' perceived level of usefulness.

RESULTS

The large numbers of round 1 items (chest: 101, abdomen: 76, blunt trauma: 80) were rationalised and grouped into categories to facilitate efficiency during subsequent rounds. Twenty-three chest, 24 abdomen and 17 blunt trauma items met the 80% agreement threshold in round 2. Items below threshold were included in round 3; numbering 44, 19 and 23 for chest, abdomen and blunt trauma, respectively. Through the e-Delphi process, we formulated clinical information criteria standards for three CT types.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed standards will guide Australian referrers in providing adequate clinical information in CT requests, to support optimal reporting, diagnosis and treatment.

The value of referral information and assessment - a cross sectional study of radiographers' perceptions

Background

Radiology professionals are frequently confronted with referrals containing insufficient clinical information, which hinders delivery of safe and quality medical imaging services. There is however lack of knowledge on why and how referral information is important for radiographers in clinical practice. This study explores what purposes referral information is used/ useful for the radiographers, and the benefits of involving them in assessing referrals.

Methods

A cross sectional study was conducted of radiographers recruited through the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT) networks. A questionnaire was developed and distributed consisting of 5-point Likert scale questions on a) use/usefulness of referral information for 12 listed purposes and b) the benefits of radiographers assessing referrals for 8 possible reasons. The questionnaire was validated using a test–retest reliability analysis. Kappa values ≥0.6 were accepted. SPSS software was used for data analysis and chi-square tests to determine associations between using referral information and background variables.

Results

Total respondents were 279 (n = 233 currently in clinical practice and n = 46 in other positions). The participants in clinical practice ranked high all 12 listed purposes for use of referral information, and all except one received ≥60% ‘frequent’/‘very frequent’ responses. Use for patient identification purposes received the highest score (97% ‘frequently’/‘very frequently’ responses), followed by ensuring imaging of the correct body region (79% ‘very frequently’ responses). Radiographers not currently working in clinical practice ranked the ‘usefulness’ of listed items similarly. Significant associations between frequent use of referral information and education level were not observed, and only three items were significantly associated with modality of practice. All items on benefits of radiographers assessing referrals received ≥75% ‘agree’/‘strongly agree’ scores. The items ranked highest were promotes radiographers’ professional responsibility and improves collaboration with radiologists and referring clinicians, with 72 and 67% strongly agreed responses, respectively.

Conclusion

Radiographers use referral information frequently for several purposes. The referral information is needed for justifying and optimising radiological procedures, hence crucial for ensuring patient safety and high-quality services. This further emphasis why radiographers perceive several benefits of being involved in assessing the referral information.

Dispelling myths: The case for women in radiology and radiation oncology

Common misconceptions about radiology and radiation oncology exist and may dissuade women from pursuing these specialties. The American Association for Women in Radiology (AAWR) Medical Student Outreach Subcommittee began a multi-year social media campaign aimed at addressing these myths. Here, we outline several myths presented in this social media campaign and provide a combination of literature review and experts' opinions to deconstruct and dispel them.

Concordance Assessment of Pathology Results with Imaging Findings after Image-Guided Biopsy

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of radiology review for discordance between pathology results from computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsies versus imaging findings performed before a biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective review, which is compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and approved by the institutional review board, 926 consecutive CT-guided biopsies performed between January 2015 and December 2017 were included. In total, 453 patients were presented in radiology review meetings (prospective group), and the results were classified as concordant or discordant. Results from the remaining 473 patients not presented at the radiology review meetings were retrospectively classified. Times to reintervention and to definitive diagnosis were obtained for discordant cases; of these, 49 (11%) of the 453 patients were in the prospective group and 55 (12%) of the 473 patients in the retrospective group.

RESULTS

Pathology results from CT-guided biopsies were discordant with imaging in 11% (104/926) of the cases, with 57% (59/104) of these cases proving to be malignant. In discordant cases, reintervention with biopsy and surgery yielded a shorter time to definitive diagnosis (28 and 14 days, respectively) than an imaging follow-up (78 days) (P < .001). The median time to diagnosis was 41 days in the prospective group and 56 days in the retrospective group (P = .46). When radiologists evaluated the concordance between pathology and imaging findings and recommended a repeat biopsy for the discordant cases, more biopsies were performed (50% [11/22] vs 13% [4/31]; P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Eleven percent of CT-guided biopsies yielded pathology results that were discordant with imaging findings, with 57% of these proving to be malignant on further workup.

Radiographers' actions and challenges when confronted with inappropriate radiology referrals

OBJECTIVES

To explore radiographers' actions toward inappropriate referrals and hindrances to assessing referrals.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to radiographers via the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT) networks. The questionnaire consisted of 5-point Likert scale questions on radiographers' actions to supplement referral information, actions for unjustified referrals and hindrances to referral assessment. The questionnaire was validated using a test-retest reliability analysis. Kappa values ≥ 0.6 were accepted. SPSS software was used for data analysis and chi-square tests to compare subgroups.

RESULTS

Total responses received were 279. The most reported actions to supplement missing referral information were to ask the patient or relative, examine the body region of concern and check medical records (73%, 70%, 67%, responded often/always, respectively). The actions when confronted with unjustified referrals were reported equally to consult the radiologist, referring clinician and radiographer (69-68% often/always responses). The hindering factors ranked high (agreed/strongly agreed responses) pertained to inadequate information in referral forms (83%), ineffective communication among healthcare professionals (79%), lack of training (70%) and allocated time (61%). Statistically significant associations were observed for a few actions and hindrances with education level, modality of practice and responsibility to screen imaging referrals.

CONCLUSION

Radiographers consult colleagues about suspected unjustified referrals. Effective communication pathways, training and time allocation to improve radiographers' skills to assess referrals may enhance appropriate imaging and delivery of quality patient care.

KEY POINTS

• Radiographers' actions of supplementing missing information in radiology referrals facilitate provision of high-quality health services. • Radiographers' strategy when confronted with inappropriate referrals is to consult radiologists and referring clinicians. • Better inter-professional communication and organisation of tasks can facilitate radiographers' participation in referral assessment to ensure appropriate imaging.

Evaluation of radiological contribution to patient management: the orthopedist's point of view

BACKGROUND

Orthopedists prefer imaging studies for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients.

PURPOSE

To determine the effect of orthopedists' characteristics, including subspecialty, age, education, and professional experience, in collaboration with radiologists and the usefulness of radiology reports for orthopedists in diagnosis and patient management.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Questionnaires, consisting of 21 questions investigating the orthopedists' characteristics, their behavior with radiology reports, their thoughts on communication, and collaboration with radiologists, were distributed to 205 orthopedists. Descriptive analysis was performed, and the effects of orthopedist characteristics on the outcomes was evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 161 out of 205 enrolled participants were included in the analysis. A total of 156 (96.9%) participants stated that they reviewed at least one official radiology report, with MRI receiving the highest rate (92.4%). The main reason provided for not reviewing the radiology reports and requests regarding changes to radiology report formats seemed to be mostly related to time pressure. Despite a significant portion of the participants stating that clinical and surgical findings were inconsistent with radiology reports, less than half were inclined to contact the radiologist most of the time or always. Increasing age (P = 0.005), experience (P = 0.016), and university hospital specialization (P = 0.007) increased the tendency to form multidisciplinary team meetings. Communication with radiologists increased with age (P < 0.001), while more experience reduced the impact of radiology reports on decision-making (P = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

Increasing cooperation between orthopedists and radiologists will make a significant contribution to decision-making and treatment processes. Orthopedists' characteristics are influential factors in establishing this communication.

Enhancing communication between foundation doctors and radiologists: a quality improvement project

Facilitating radiological imaging for patients is an essential task for foundation year (FY) doctors. Achieving competence in this task can significantly enhance patient management. We evaluated the confidence and skills of FY doctors in facilitating radiological imaging before and after introduction of formal training. Twenty surgical FYs working at a large teaching hospital were surveyed to evaluate their baseline level of competence in booking and discussing imaging with radiology colleagues. Parameters were measured on a Likert scale, including confidence in discussing requests and satisfaction of their own performance following discussions with radiologists. Eight radiology consultants were surveyed to evaluate their opinions on FYs' communication and established areas for improvement. A teaching session was then delivered to improve communication skills. Furthermore, Previous investigation results, Answer you need from the scan, Clinical status and story, Crucial: how urgent is the scan, Safety (PACCSS) poster was introduced to remind the FYs of the salient information required when discussing imaging. One month after the intervention, the initial participants were resurveyed. Based on a 10-point Likert scale, the FYs demonstrated a mean improvement in self-reported confidence (2.1±1.1, p<0.01), and in satisfaction of own performance after a discussion (1.7±1.1, p<0.01). We identified deficiencies in surgical FY doctors' confidence and skills in facilitating radiological imaging. There was a demonstrable benefit with focused training in improving these skills. This could potentially provide significant benefits in patient care and management. Interspecialty communication should be introduced into undergraduate and postgraduate educational curriculum.

The Results of Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography Interpreted via Remote Access for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

Abdominal computed tomography (CT) is one of the imaging modalities for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA). Today, CT scans can be interpreted via remote access called tele-radiology, besides conventional methods. The objective of this study was to evaluate the CT interpreted via tele-radiology for diagnosing AA.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, a total of 679 patients, who were interpreted via tele-radiology of CT due to suspicion of AA, were evaluated. Age, gender, CT findings, pathology results and intra-operative diagnosis of those with normal CT results were analysed. A sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) of CT in the diagnosis of AA were calculated.

RESULTS

520 patients who were operated with pre-diagnosed AA were found. Of those, 441 patients (84.8%) were diagnosed with AA according to CT reports, out of which 368 (83.4%) were positive (true-positive) and 73 (16.6%) were negative (false-positive) in terms of pathology results. In the remaining operated 79 patients with normal CT results, 58 (73.4%) were positive for AA and 21 (26.6%) (negative laparotomy) were negative for AA in terms of pathological examination. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV and NPV of CT in the diagnosis of AA were determined as 81.2%, 67.7%, 76.7%, 83.4% and 64.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The sensitivity and PPV rates were found similar in both conventional and tele-radiological methods. However, specificity, accuracy and NPV rates were determined lower than in literature. Additionally, the negative laparotomy rate was higher than the conventional method.

Towards better metainterpretation: improving the clinician's interpretation of the radiology report

How the clinician interprets the radiology report has a major impact on the patient's care. It is a crucial cognitive task, and can also be a significant source of error. Because the clinician must secondarily interpret the radiologist's interpretation of the images, this step can be referred to as a "metainterpretation". Some considerations for that task are offered from the perspective of a radiologist. A revival of the tradition of discussing cases with the radiologist is encouraged.

Non-Medical Radiography Staff Experiences in Inter-Professional Communication: A Swedish Qualitative Focus Group Interview Study

Purpose

To describe the experiences of non-medical discipline staff of difficulties and possibilities in inter-professional communication within the radiology department and remitting departments.

Materials and Methods

Three focus group interviews were conducted with 16 non-medical discipline staff in a radiology department at a university hospital in Sweden. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

The experiences of inter-professional communication by non-medical discipline staff within the radiology department and with remitting departments can be described in three categories, and six sub categories. The informants experienced difficulties in both oral and written inter-professional communication. Inadequate structures, incorrect information and unclear language in the referral forms, lack of feedback from clinicians and radiologists, and reduced face-to-face communication were described as factors that negatively influenced communication. Other difficulties were time shortage, inadequate routines and economy issues. The possibilities described were use of face-to-face communication, interpreters, and clear and well-structured referral forms.

Conclusion

Non-medical staff experience that quality in inter-professional communication has a significant impact on health outcomes and patient safety. They expressed a number of difficulties in both written and oral inter-professional communication. For example inadequate written and oral communication, as well as practical issues such as routine could negatively influence the quality of the outcome of inter-professional communication. Lack of feedback from clinicians and radiologists and reduced face-to-face communication were also mentioned as factors that influence oral communication. Possibilities described to improve inter-professional communication quality and thus patient safety were professional contact on both professional and personal levels, use of interpreters, and clear and well-structured referral forms. The results of this study add to our knowledge of the difficulties and possibilities in non-medical inter-professional communication, which may enhance both safety and health outcomes for patients if implemented. Future studies in interprofessional communication is needed.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/4xjYNwpYD90

Bayesian Approach to Predicting Acute Appendicitis Using Ultrasonographic and Clinical Variables in Children

Objectives

Ultrasound has an established role in the diagnostic pathway for children with suspected appendicitis. Relevant clinical information can influence the diagnostic probability and reporting of ultrasound findings. A Bayesian network (BN) is a directed acyclic graph (DAG) representing variables as nodes connected by directional arrows permitting visualisation of their relationships. This research developed a BN model with ultrasonographic and clinical variables to predict acute appendicitis in children.

Methods

A DAG was designed through a hybrid method based on expert opinion and a review of literature to define the model structure; and the discretisation and weighting of identified variables were calculated using principal components analysis, which also informed the conditional probability table of nodes.

Results

The acute appendicitis target node was designated as an outcome of interest influenced by four sub-models, including Ultrasound Index, Clinical History, Physical Assessment, and Diagnostic Tests. These sub-models included four sonographic, three blood-test, and six clinical variables. The BN was scenario tested and evaluated for face, predictive, and content validity. A lack of similar networks complicated concurrent and convergent validity evaluation.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first BN model developed for the identification of acute appendicitis incorporating imaging variables. It has particular benefit for cases in which variables are missing because prior probabilities are built into corresponding nodes. It will be of use to clinicians involved in ultrasound examination of children with suspected appendicitis, as well as their treating clinicians. Prospective evaluation and development of an online tool will permit validation and refinement of the BN.

Difficulties and possibilities in communication between referring clinicians and radiologists: perspective of clinicians

Purpose

To investigate modes and quality of interprofessional communication between clinicians and radiologists, and to identify difficulties and possibilities in this context, as experienced by referring clinicians.

Patients and methods

Focus group interviews with 22 clinicians from different specialties were carried out. The leading question was: "How do you experience communication, verbal and nonverbal, between referring clinicians and radiologists?" Content analysis was used for interpretation of data.

Results

Overall, referring clinicians expressed satisfaction with their interprofessional communication with radiologists, and digital access to image data was highly appreciated. However, increased reliance on digital communication has led to reduced face-to-face contacts between clinicians and radiologists. This seems to constitute a potential threat to bilateral feedback, joint educational opportunities, and interprofessional development. Cumbersome medical information software systems, time constraints, shortage of staff, reliance on teleradiology, and lack of uniform format of radiology reports were mentioned as problematic. Further implementation of structured reporting was considered beneficial.

Conclusion

Deepened face-to-face contacts between clinicians and radiologists were considered prerequisites for mutual understanding, deepened competence and mutual trust; a key factor in interprofessional communication. Clinicians and radiologists should come together in order to secure bilateral feedback and obtain deepened knowledge of the specific needs of subspecialized clinicians.

Effect of Clinical History on Interpretation of Computed Tomography for Acute Stroke

Objective

We assessed whether providing detailed clinical information alongside computed tomography (CT) images improves their interpretation for acute stroke.

Methods

Using the prospective Cornell AcutE Stroke Academic Registry, we randomly selected 100 patients who underwent noncontrast head CT within 6 hours of transient ischemic attack or minor acute ischemic stroke and underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 6 hours of the CT. Three radiologist investigators evaluated each of the 100 CT studies twice, once with and once without accompanying information on medical history, signs, and symptoms. In random sequence, each study was interpreted in one condition (ie, with or without detailed accompanying information) and then after a 4-week washout period, in the opposite condition. Using MRI diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) as the reference standard, we classified CT interpretations as correct (true positives or negatives) or incorrect (false positives or negatives). We used logistic regression with sandwich estimators to compare the proportion of correct interpretations.

Results

In patients with DWI-defined infarcts, acute ischemia was called on 20% of CTs with detailed history and 18% without history. In patients without infarcts, the absence of ischemia was called on 77% of CTs with history and 77% without history. The proportion of correct interpretations of CTs accompanied by detailed clinical history (49%) did not differ significantly from those without history (47%; odds ratio: 1.1; 95% confidence interval: 0.8-1.4).

Conclusions

Reported findings on head CT for evaluation of suspected acute ischemic stroke were similar regardless of whether detailed clinical history was provided.

Inadequate Clinical Indications in Computed Tomography Chest and Abdomen/Pelvis Scans

CONTEXT

As the use of computed tomography (CT) scans, which are expensive and result in considerable radiation exposure to the patient, continues to increase, communication between physicians and radiologists remains vital to explain the clinical context for the examination. However, the clinical information provided to the radiologist is often lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the clinical information provided in CT scan requests meets minimum criteria for requesting the examination.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical indications for 400 CT chest scans and 400 CT abdomen/pelvis scans performed from January 1, 2016, through March 8, 2016. We determined whether each CT study indication was complete on the basis of whether the clinical information included an adequate clinical history with 1) a primary symptom, 2) the location of the symptom, and 3) the duration of the symptom as well as a suspected etiology.

RESULTS

Of the CT chest indications, 56 (14.0%) of the clinical histories were considered complete and 17 (4.3%) had none of the components. A principal etiology was included in 195 (48.8%) of the indications. Of the CT abdomen/pelvis indications, 94 (23.5%) of the clinical histories were complete and 13 (3.3%) had none of the components. A principal etiology was included in 173 (43.3%) of the indications. Only 23 (5.8%) of the CT chest studies and 35 (8.8%) of the CT abdomen/pelvis studies had information considered sufficient for the radiologist.

CONCLUSION

The percentage of complete clinical indications for both CT chest and abdomen/pelvis scans was much lower than 50%, suggesting that more emphasis should be placed on providing complete clinical indications.

Radiographers' experience of risks for patient safety incidents in the radiology department

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To describe potential risks for patient safety incidents in the radiology department from a radiographer's perspective.

BACKGROUND

A radiology department is a high-tech environment with high communication activity between different healthcare systems in combination with a large patient flow. Risks for patient safety incidents exist in every phase of a radiological examination. Due to the nature of the activity, a radiology department needs to have its own range of measures to prevent risks linked to radiology.

DESIGN

A qualitative descriptive design.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 17 radiographers during the period September 2015 to February 2016. The data were analysed using conventional content analysis. This study followed the COREQ checklist criteria for the reporting of qualitative research.

RESULTS

The analysis yielded 20 different patient safety incidents that could result in the following six types of healthcare-associated harm: Patients could be exposed to unnecessary radiation; patients could receive an inaccurate diagnosis; patients could incur drug-induced damage; patients could suffer direct physical injury; or, their examination and treatment could be delayed or not carried out; or, their general health condition could deteriorate.

CONCLUSION

Lack of communication and knowledge, both internally and externally, can increase risks for patient safety incidents. The study describes a complex chain of activities that represent risks in the radiology department. It needs to be pointed out that it is not always the activities in the radiology department that cause the harm.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

To carry out preventive patient safety work, a comprehensive analysis of the entire care chain is required. Patient safety work should also focus on improvement in communication both internally, within the radiology department, and externally. Standardised methodological guidelines, consistent prescriptions of method from the radiologist and a good working environment are internal success factors for patient safety at the radiology department.

Who You Gonna Call? Automatically Connecting Radiologists to the Right Clinician

Contacting clinicians to convey critical results is a critical part of radiology workflow, but many obstacles prevent easy and timely communication. Integration of radiology applications and workflow with an EHR-based patient coverage database demonstrated subjective and objective improvement in radiologist workflow and satisfaction.

A review of data in medical request and the patient questionnaire for magnetic resonance evaluation of silicone breast implants

Objective

To analyze the quality and quantity of data in the questionnaires and in request forms for magnetic resonance imaging.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted with data from 300 medical records. The research used the following data from the questionnaires: patient age, reason for the magnetic resonance imaging, reason for placing the breast implant, report of any signs or symptoms, time elapsed since surgery to place the current breast implant, replacement implant surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy treatments. From the magnetic resonance imaging request forms, information about the breast implant, the implant placement surgery, patient clinical information and ordering physician specialty were verified.

Results

The mean age of patients was 48.8 years, and the mean time elapsed since breast implant surgery was 5 years. A total of 60% of women in the sample were submitted to aesthetic surgery, while 23.7% were submitted to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. In the request forms, 23.7% of physicians added some piece of information about the patient, whereas 2.3% of them informed the type of implant and 5.2% informed about the surgery.

Conclusion

The amount of information in the magnetic resonance imaging request forms is very limited, and this may hinder quality of radiological reports. Institutional and technological measures should be implemented to encourage the requesting physicians and radiologists to share information.

Voices emerging from the shadows: Radiologic practitioners' experiences of challenging conversations

OBJECTIVE

Traditionally, radiologists have practiced their profession behind the scenes. Today, radiologic practitioners face mounting expectations to communicate more directly with patients. However, their experiences with patient communication are not well understood. The aim of this study was to describe the challenges of radiologic practitioners when communicating with patients.

METHODS

Twelve day-long interprofessional communication skills workshops for radiologic clinicians were held at Boston Children's Hospital. Prior to each workshop, participants were asked to write narratives describing experiences with difficult radiologic conversations that they found particularly challenging or satisfying. The narratives were transcribed and analyzed through thematic content analysis by two researchers.

RESULTS

Radiologists, radiology trainees, technologists, nurses, and medical interpreters completed 92 narratives. The most challenging aspects of healthcare conversations included: Conveying Serious News (n=44/92; 48%); Expanded Scope of Radiologic Practice (n=37/92; 40%); Inexperience and Gaps in Education (n=15/92; 16%); Clinical Uncertainty (n=14/92; 15%); and Interprofessional Teamwork (n=9/92; 10%).

CONCLUSION

Radiologic clinicians face substantial communicative challenges focused on conveying serious, unexpected and uncertain diagnoses amid practical challenges and limited educational opportunities.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Innovative educational curricula that address these challenges may enhance radiologic practitioners' success in adopting patient-centered communication.

Is the devil in the detail? The quality and clinical impact of information provided on requests for non-trauma emergency abdominal CT scans

BACKGROUND

The role of the radiology information system in streamlining imaging workflow and enhancing efficiency in digital radiology departments is now well established. Although there is increasing use of systems with the capacity for computerized physician order entry, there has been limited work on the quality of clinical data provided on electronic diagnostic imaging requests.

PURPOSE

To assess the quality of clinical details provided on electronic diagnostic imaging requests (DIR) for emergency non-trauma abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans, and the impact of such data on radiological outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 100 consecutive electronic DIRs for emergency non-trauma abdominal CT scans for patients with an acute abdomen in a tertiary-level public-sector hospital. The quality of clinical data was assessed using the Royal College of Physicians' referral guidelines and correlated with radiological outcomes, defined as a definitive CT diagnosis.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight percent of requests presented a clear clinical question, 48% recorded clinical examination details, 29% had adequate clinical histories, and 17% included laboratory investigations, while only 2% of requests were complete in all respects. Although 88% of scans yielded a definitive radiological diagnosis, there was no association between the adequacy of DIR details and a definitive radiological outcome.

CONCLUSION

Our findings underscore the non-specific clinical presentation of non-trauma-related abdominal emergencies and the pivotal role of CT in providing a definitive diagnosis in this setting. We suggest that the appropriate triage of patients presenting with an acute, non-trauma abdomen is the overriding clinical imperative.

Dynamic software design for clinical exome and genome analyses: insights from bioinformaticians, clinical geneticists, and genetic counselors

BACKGROUND

The transition of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing (WES/WGS) from the research setting to routine clinical practice remains challenging.

OBJECTIVES

With almost no previous research specifically assessing interface designs and functionalities of WES and WGS software tools, the authors set out to ascertain perspectives from healthcare professionals in distinct domains on optimal clinical genomics user interfaces.

METHODS

A series of semi-scripted focus groups, structured around professional challenges encountered in clinical WES and WGS, were conducted with bioinformaticians (n = 8), clinical geneticists (n = 9), genetic counselors (n = 5), and general physicians (n = 4).

RESULTS

Contrary to popular existing system designs, bioinformaticians preferred command line over graphical user interfaces for better software compatibility and customization flexibility. Clinical geneticists and genetic counselors desired an overarching interactive graphical layout to prioritize candidate variants--a "tiered" system where only functionalities relevant to the user domain are made accessible. They favored a system capable of retrieving consistent representations of external genetic information from third-party sources. To streamline collaboration and patient exchanges, the authors identified user requirements toward an automated reporting system capable of summarizing key evidence-based clinical findings among the vast array of technical details.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful adoption of a clinical WES/WGS system is heavily dependent on its ability to address the diverse necessities and predilections among specialists in distinct healthcare domains. Tailored software interfaces suitable for each group is likely more appropriate than the current popular "one size fits all" generic framework. This study provides interfaces for future intervention studies and software engineering opportunities.

Optimizing Patient-centered Communication and Multidisciplinary Care Coordination in Emergency Diagnostic Imaging: A Research Agenda

Patient-centered emergency diagnostic imaging relies on efficient communication and multispecialty care coordination to ensure optimal imaging utilization. The construct of the emergency diagnostic imaging care coordination cycle with three main phases (pretest, test, and posttest) provides a useful framework to evaluate care coordination in patient-centered emergency diagnostic imaging. This article summarizes findings reached during the patient-centered outcomes session of the 2015 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference "Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda to Optimize Utilization." The primary objective was to develop a research agenda focused on 1) defining component parts of the emergency diagnostic imaging care coordination process, 2) identifying gaps in communication that affect emergency diagnostic imaging, and 3) defining optimal methods of communication and multidisciplinary care coordination that ensure patient-centered emergency diagnostic imaging. Prioritized research questions provided the framework to define a research agenda for multidisciplinary care coordination in emergency diagnostic imaging.