Won Eugene, Rosenkrantz Andrew B
1 Department of Radiology, Center for Biomedical Imaging, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, 660 First Ave, 3rd Fl, New York, NY 10016.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Nov;209(5):965-969. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18050. Epub 2017 Jul 20.
The purpose of this study is to assess informal consultations between radiologists and referring physicians as identified through an electronic medical record (EMR) search.
The EMR was searched for physician notes containing either the term "radiologist" or "radiology" in combination with any of the following: "second opinion," "second-opinion," "2nd opinion," "2nd-opinion," "rereview," "re-review," "reread," "re-read," "overread," "over-read," "spoke with," "discussed with," or "reviewed with." A sample of 300 notes describing a consultation by a referring physician with a diagnostic radiologist was identified.
Of the consultations, 73.3% were related to a specific previously interpreted imaging study, and 26.7% were related to other general management issues, including patient safety. Only 18.7% of the physicians' notes indicated the name of the consulted radiologist; a fraction of these consultations were with a radiologist other than the one who originally interpreted the study or with a radiologist at an outside institution. Of consultations with a local radiologist regarding a specific prior examination, 33.9% resulted in a new finding, a change in severity of a previously detected finding, or a change in management recommendation. Of consultations with a change from the initial report, 24.6% were documented by the radiologist via an addendum; 92.9% of these addenda agreed with the referring physicians' notes.
Radiologists may be unaware of how their consultations are captured within physician notes that may be incomplete or misrepresent the communication. Radiology practices should consider developing policies requiring radiologists to document informal consultations potentially affecting patient management, while developing solutions to facilitate such documentation when it is not readily achieved through report addenda (e.g., through direct documentation by the radiologist in the EMR).
本研究旨在通过电子病历(EMR)检索评估放射科医生与转诊医生之间的非正式会诊情况。
在EMR中检索包含“放射科医生”或“放射学”,并与以下任何词汇组合的医生记录:“二次意见”“second opinion”“second-opinion”“2nd opinion”“2nd-opinion”“再次审核”“rereview”“re-review”“再次阅读”“reread”“re-read”“复阅”“overread”“over-read”“与……交谈”“spoke with”“与……讨论”“discussed with”或“与……审核”“reviewed with”。确定了300份描述转诊医生与诊断放射科医生会诊的记录样本。
在这些会诊中,73.3%与之前特定的已解读影像检查相关,26.7%与其他一般管理问题相关,包括患者安全。只有18.7%的医生记录注明了会诊放射科医生的姓名;其中一部分会诊是与最初解读该检查的放射科医生以外的医生进行的,或者是与外部机构的放射科医生进行的。在就特定先前检查与当地放射科医生进行的会诊中,33.9%产生了新发现、先前检测到的发现的严重程度变化或管理建议的变化。在会诊结果与初始报告不同的情况中,24.6%由放射科医生通过补遗记录;这些补遗中有92.9%与转诊医生的记录一致。
放射科医生可能未意识到他们的会诊在医生记录中的呈现方式可能不完整或存在错误表述。放射科实践应考虑制定政策,要求放射科医生记录可能影响患者管理的非正式会诊,同时制定解决方案,以便在通过报告补遗难以实现时(例如,通过放射科医生在EMR中的直接记录)促进此类记录。