Renwick I G, Butt W P, Steele B
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds.
BMJ. 1991 Mar 9;302(6776):568-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.302.6776.568.
To assess the ability of radiographers to identify abnormal radiographs of patients attending accident and emergency departments.
Prospective study over six weeks.
Teaching hospital casualty x ray department.
3394 consecutive patients referred for radiography.
Radiographs were assessed by radiographers who were offered a four point triage scheme: normal, abnormal, insignificantly abnormal, or further advice required.
Comparison of radiographers' assessments with an assessment made independently by the reporting radiologists.
Overall disagreement between the radiographers and radiologists was 9.4%. There were 7% false positives and 14% false negatives. Most errors occurred in assessing radiographs of the skull, facial bones, chest, abdomen, and soft tissues.
Unselected radiographers can offer useful advice on radiographs to casualty officers, but their high rate of false positive diagnoses indicates that they cannot triage casualty radiographs sufficiently accurately to allow them to extend their current reporting role.
评估放射技师识别急诊科患者异常X光片的能力。
为期六周的前瞻性研究。
教学医院的急诊X光科室。
3394例连续接受X光检查的患者。
放射技师依据四点分类方案对X光片进行评估：正常、异常、异常不显著或需要进一步建议。
放射技师的评估结果与报告放射科医生独立做出的评估结果进行比较。
放射技师与放射科医生之间的总体分歧率为9.4%。假阳性率为7%，假阴性率为14%。大多数错误发生在对头骨、面部骨骼、胸部、腹部和软组织X光片的评估中。
未经筛选的放射技师可为急诊医生提供有关X光片的有用建议，但其较高的假阳性诊断率表明，他们无法足够准确地对急诊X光片进行分类，从而无法扩大其当前的报告职责。
Zotero 插件