...
首页> 外文期刊>Western Journal of Emergency Medicine >Radiograph Interpretation Discrepancies in a Community Hospital Emergency Department
【24h】

Radiograph Interpretation Discrepancies in a Community Hospital Emergency Department

机译:社区医院急诊科的射线照相解释差异

获取原文
           

摘要

Introduction: In many hospitals, off-hours emergency department (ED) radiographs are not read by a radiologist until the following morning and are instead interpreted by the emergency physician (EP) at the time of service. Studies have found conflicting results regarding the radiographic interpretation discrepancies between EPs and trained radiologists. The aim of this study was to identify the number of radiologic interpretation discrepancies between EPs and radiologists in a community ED setting.Methods: Using a pre-existing logbook of radiologic discrepancies as well as our institution’s picture archiving and communication system, all off-hours interpretation discrepancies between January 2012 and January 2015 were reviewed and recorded in a de-identified fashion. We recorded the type of radiograph obtained for each patient. Discrepancy grades were recorded based on a pre-existing 1-4 scale defined in the institution’s protocol logbook as Grade 1 (no further action needed); Grade 2 (call to the patient or pharmacy); Grade 3 (return to ED for further treatment, e.g., fracture not splinted); Grade 4 (return to ED for serious risk, e.g., pneumothorax, bowel obstruction). We also recorded the total number of radiographs formally interpreted by EPs during the prescribed time-frame to determine overall agreement between EPs and radiologists.Results: There were 1044 discrepancies out of 16,111 EP reads, indicating 93.5% agreement. Patients averaged 48.4 ± 25.0 years of age and 53.3% were female; 25.1% were over-calls by EPs. The majority of discrepancies were minor with 75.8% Grade 1 and 22.3% Grade 2. Only 1.7% were Grade 3, which required return to the ED for further treatment. A small number of discrepancies, 0.2%, were Grade 4. Grade 4 discrepancies accounted for two of the 16,111 total reads, equivalent to 0.01%. A slight disagreement in finding between EP and radiologist accounted for 8.3% of discrepancies.Conclusion:Results suggest that plain radiographic studies can be interpreted by EPs with a very low incidence of clinically significant discrepancies when compared to the radiologist interpretation. Due to rare though significant discrepancies, radiologist interpretation should be performed when available. Further studies are needed to determine the generalizability of this study to EDs with differing volume, patient population, acuity, and physician training.
机译:简介:在许多医院中,放射科医生直到第二天早晨才下班时的急诊室(ED)射线照片,而在服务时由急诊医师(EP)进行解释。研究发现,关于EP和训练有素的放射线医师之间的放射线解释差异存在矛盾的结果。这项研究的目的是确定社区ED环境中EP和放射科医生之间的放射学解释差异的数量。方法:使用现有的放射学差异日志以及我们机构的图片存档和通信系统,所有非工作时间回顾并记录了2012年1月至2015年1月之间的口译差异。我们记录了每位患者获得的X光片类型。差异等级是根据该机构的协议日志中定义为1级的先前存在的1-4等级记录的(无需采取进一步措施); 2年级(致电患者或药房); 3级(返回ED进行进一步治疗,例如骨折未夹板); 4级(严重风险(例如气胸,肠梗阻)返回ED)。我们还记录了在规定的时间范围内由EP正式解释的X射线照片总数,以确定EP和放射科医生之间的总体一致性。结果:16 111份EP读数中有1044个差异,表明一致性为93.5%。患者平均年龄为48.4±25.0岁,女性为53.3%; EPs的电话占25.1%。大多数差异较小,其中1级为75.8%,2级为22.3%。3级只有1.7%,需要返回急诊室进行进一步治疗。少数差异为0.2%,属于第4级。第4级差异占16,111个总读取中的两个,相当于0.01%。 EP和放射线医师之间的发现存在轻微差异,占差异的8.3%。结论:结果表明,与放射线医师的解释相比,EP可以对普通放射线影像学进行解释,而临床显着差异的发生率非常低。由于极少的差异,尽管如此,放射医师应在可能的情况下进行解释。需要进一步的研究来确定这项研究对不同数量,患者人群,敏锐度和医师培训的急诊室的推广性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号