The accuracy of interpretation of emergency abdominal CT in adult patients who present with non-traumatic abdominal pain: results of a UK national audit.


Howlett, DC; Drinkwater, K; Frost, C; Higginson, A; Ball, C; Maskell, G; (2017) The accuracy of interpretation of emergency abdominal CT in adult patients who present with non-traumatic abdominal pain: results of a UK national audit. Clinical radiology, 72 (1). pp. 41-51. ISSN 0009-9260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.008

This is the latest version of this item. Earlier version may have full text manuscript

[img]
Preview
Text - Published Version
License: Copyright the author(s)

Download (280kB) | Preview
[img]
Preview
Text - Accepted Version
License:

Download (391kB) | Preview
[img]
Preview
Text - Accepted Version
License:

Download (1MB) | Preview
[img]
Preview
Text - Accepted Version
License:

Download (123kB) | Preview

Abstract

: To evaluate major/minor discrepancy rates for provisional (initial) and addendum (supplementary senior review) emergency computed tomography (CT) reports in patients presenting with non-traumatic abdominal pain.<br/> : Ethical approval for this type of study is not required in the UK. All radiology departments with an approved lead for audit registered with the Royal College of Radiologists were invited to participate in this retrospective audit. The first 50 consecutive patients (25 surgical, 25 non-surgical) who underwent emergency abdominal CT for non-traumatic abdominal pain in 2013 were included. Statistical analyses were performed to identify organisational and report/patient-related variables that might be associated with major discrepancy.<br/> : One hundred and nine (58%) of 188 departments supplied data to the study with a total of 4,931 patients (2,568 surgical, 2,363 non-surgical). The audit standard for provisional report major discrepancy was achieved for registrars (target &lt;10%, achieved 4.6%), for on-site consultants (target &lt;5%, achieved 3.1%) and consultant addendum (target &lt;5%, achieved 2.9%). Off-site reporters failed to meet the standard target (&lt;5%, achieved 8.7% overall and 12.7% in surgical patients). The standard for patients coming to harm was not met in the surgical group (target &lt;1%, achieved 1.5%) and was narrowly missed overall (target &lt;1%, achieved 1%).<br/> : This study should be used to provide impetus to improve aspects of out-of-hours CT reporting. Clear benefits of CT interpretation/review by on-site and more senior (consultant) radiologists have been demonstrated.<br/>

Item Type: Article
Faculty and Department: Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health > Dept of Medical Statistics
PubMed ID: 27927488
Web of Science ID: 396366800007
URI: http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/3207369

Available Versions of this Item

Statistics


Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads since deposit
40Downloads
45Hits
Accesses by country - last 12 months
Accesses by referrer - last 12 months
Impact and interest
Additional statistics for this record are available via IRStats2

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item