Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, 3333 Burnet Avenue, ML 5031, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA.
Department of Radiology, Egleston campus, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, 1405 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA.
J Digit Imaging. 2017 Oct;30(5):584-588. doi: 10.1007/s10278-017-9967-4.
While medical calculators are common, they are infrequently used in the day-to-day radiology practice. We hypothesized that a calculator coupled with a structured report generator would decrease the time required to interpret and dictate a study in addition to decreasing the number of errors in interpretation. A web-based application was created to help radiologists calculate leg-length discrepancies. A time motion study was performed to evaluate if the calculator helped to decrease the time for interpretation and dictation of leg-length radiographs. Two radiologists each evaluated two sets of ten radiographs, one set using the traditional pen and paper method and the other set using the calculator. The time to interpret each study and the time to dictate each study were recorded. In addition, each calculation was checked for errors. When comparing the two methods of calculating the leg lengths, the manual method was significantly slower than the calculator for all time points measured: the mean time to calculate the leg-length discrepancy (131.8 vs. 59.7 s; p < 0.001), the mean time to dictate the report (31.8 vs. 11 s; p < 0.001), and the mean total time (163.7 vs. 70.7 s; p < 0.001). Reports created by the calculator were more accurate than reports created via the manual method (100 vs. 90%), although this result was not significant (p = 0.16). A calculator with a structured report generator significantly improved the time required to calculate and dictate leg-length discrepancy studies.
虽然医学计算器很常见,但在日常放射学实践中很少使用。我们假设,计算器与结构化报告生成器相结合,除了减少解释错误的数量外,还可以缩短解释和口述研究所需的时间。我们创建了一个基于网络的应用程序,以帮助放射科医生计算腿长差异。进行了时间运动研究,以评估计算器是否有助于缩短腿长射线照相解释和口述的时间。两位放射科医生每人评估了两组十张射线照片,一组使用传统的笔和纸方法,另一组使用计算器。记录了每位医生解释每项研究的时间和口述每项研究的时间。此外,还检查了每个计算的错误。当比较计算腿长的两种方法时,手动方法在所有测量的时间点上都明显慢于计算器:计算腿长差异的平均时间(131.8 秒对 59.7 秒;p<0.001),报告口述的平均时间(31.8 秒对 11 秒;p<0.001),以及平均总时间(163.7 秒对 70.7 秒;p<0.001)。计算器生成的报告比手动方法生成的报告更准确(100%对 90%),尽管这一结果并不显著(p=0.16)。带有结构化报告生成器的计算器可显著缩短计算和口述腿长差异研究所需的时间。