Radiographer reporting
Download
1 / 15

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 179 Views
  • Updated On :

Radiographer Reporting . Presented by Chan Tsz Chun 02373683d Ng Kwan Ho 02435819d Wong Kin Long, Gulliver 02710632d. Objective. Reasons for radiographer reporting Purpose of the study Methodology Justification of the study Result and suggestion for the current practice.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - reilly


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Radiographer reporting l.jpg

Radiographer Reporting

Presented by

Chan Tsz Chun 02373683d

Ng Kwan Ho 02435819d

Wong Kin Long, Gulliver 02710632d


Objective l.jpg
Objective

  • Reasons for radiographer reporting

  • Purpose of the study

  • Methodology

  • Justification of the study

  • Result and suggestion for the current practice


Reasons for reporting l.jpg
Reasons for reporting

  • All radiographic examinations accompanied by written report

  • Timely, accurate and appropriate

  • Few radiology departments provide 24 hour reporting service

  • Reports turn round quickly

  • Insufficiently fully trained clinical radiologists to undertake all procedures


Purpose of the study l.jpg
Purpose of the study

  • Non medically trained staff (radiographers) undertake reporting

  • Under supervision on selected groups of examinations (skeletal radiographs)

  • Radiographers increasingly involved in image interpretation

  • Errors and variation in interpretation now represents weakest area of clinical imaging

  • Measure film reading performance of radiographers


Methodology l.jpg
Methodology

  • Two radiographers (work independently) incorporated into radiologist rota for film reporting sessions.

  • Access to radiologist reported model, pervious reports and radiographic records

  • Full text description for significant abnormalities, normal variants & current attendance (degree & recent fracture)


Sample size l.jpg
Sample size

  • 11322 examinations

  • Systematic sampling (A&E skeletal examination) preview by A&E staff

  • Excluded injuries severe enough to require immediate admission to hospital (in-patient)

  • Overt fractures treated in A&E with referral to next available fracture clinic for early follow up

  • Aim to detect abnormalities missed by initial A&E review (high normal findings)


Outcome assessment l.jpg
Outcome assessment

  • Hypothesis- initial report missed bony injury to cause persistent symptoms.

  • Re-attend for further examination related to original injury (radiographic or other procedures)

  • Follow up period- 18months

  • Detect false negative of the index report

  • Review discrepancy for subsequent report


Limitation l.jpg
Limitation

  • Exclusion of the sample

  • Study population composed of negative or equivocal finding or relatively minor injuries (more difficult subtle cases)

  • Not directly applied to unselected A&E cases

  • Missed false negative patients for not re-attending (heal spontaneously or chronic)

  • Large proportion re-attendant, elsewhere


Justification l.jpg
Justification

  • Measuring radiographers' performance in controlled conditions in comparison with a reference standard is an assessment of validity

  • Radiologists as gold standard

  • Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for the radiographers and consultant radiologists when reporting


Justification10 l.jpg
Justification

  • Magnitude of inter-observer variation between consultant radiologists

  • Single radiologist's report should not be classified as the reference standard

  • Unless consultant radiologist with extensive experience in specific

  • Radiographers have also attained levels of accuracy


Another approach l.jpg
Another approach

  • Search behaviour techniques

  • Perceptual errors occur when an observer fails to identify an abnormality

  • Radiographers comparable patterns of search strategies to radiologists

  • Level of accuracy comparable to radiologists

  • Assessment on subsequent effect of these reports on clinicians’ diagnosis and treatment plans and patient outcome


Result l.jpg
Result

  • Just under one half of patients not re-attend

    For re-attended population (other half)

  • Majority (over 80%) underwent unrelated examinations at subsequent attendance

  • 10% re-attended for repeat radiographs of same area or related examinations


Related examination population l.jpg
Related examination population

  • 97% of follow up examination

  • Second and subsequent reports concordant to index reports.

  • Whether positive or negative suggestion

  • Only four cases patients re attended for examinations related to original injury

  • Consultant suggested discrepant interpretations for wording of index reports


Suggestion for current practice l.jpg
Suggestion for current practice

  • With appropriate training & supervision

  • Radiographers interpretation with high level of accuracy

  • Selection of particular ability & motivation (may not be widely applied)

  • Unselected radiographs or more complex imaging studies are uncertain

  • Red dot system as initiative approach


Reference l.jpg
Reference

  • Brealey, S. (2003). Accident and Emergency and General Practitioner plain radiograph reporting by radiographers and radiologists: a quasi-randomized controlled trial. The British Journal of Radiology, 76, 57-61.

  • Brealey, S. (2002). Methodological standards in radiographer plain film reading performance studies. The British Journal of Radiology, 75, 107–113

  • Brealey, Stephen. (2001). Measuring the Effects of Image Interpretation: An Evaluative Framework. Clinical Radiology 56: 341-347.

  • Robinson, PJA. (1999). Interpretation of selected accident and emergency radiographic examinations by radiographers: a review of 11000 cases. The British Journal of Radiology, 72, 546-551.


ad