Suppr超能文献

社区医院急诊科 X 光片解读差异。

Radiograph Interpretation Discrepancies in a Community Hospital Emergency Department.

机构信息

Ohio Valley Medical Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Wheeling, West Virginia.

出版信息

West J Emerg Med. 2019 Jul;20(4):626-632. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2019.1.41375. Epub 2019 Jul 2.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

In many hospitals, off-hours emergency department (ED) radiographs are not read by a radiologist until the following morning and are instead interpreted by the emergency physician (EP) at the time of service. Studies have found conflicting results regarding the radiographic interpretation discrepancies between EPs and trained radiologists. The aim of this study was to identify the number of radiologic interpretation discrepancies between EPs and radiologists in a community ED setting.

METHODS

Using a pre-existing logbook of radiologic discrepancies as well as our institution's picture archiving and communication system, all off-hours interpretation discrepancies between January 2012 and January 2015 were reviewed and recorded in a de-identified fashion. We recorded the type of radiograph obtained for each patient. Discrepancy grades were recorded based on a pre-existing 1-4 scale defined in the institution's protocol logbook as Grade 1 (no further action needed); Grade 2 (call to the patient or pharmacy); Grade 3 (return to ED for further treatment, e.g., fracture not splinted); Grade 4 (return to ED for serious risk, e.g., pneumothorax, bowel obstruction). We also recorded the total number of radiographs formally interpreted by EPs during the prescribed time-frame to determine overall agreement between EPs and radiologists.

RESULTS

There were 1044 discrepancies out of 16,111 EP reads, indicating 93.5% agreement. Patients averaged 48.4 ± 25.0 years of age and 53.3% were female; 25.1% were over-calls by EPs. The majority of discrepancies were minor with 75.8% Grade 1 and 22.3% Grade 2. Only 1.7% were Grade 3, which required return to the ED for further treatment. A small number of discrepancies, 0.2%, were Grade 4. Grade 4 discrepancies accounted for two of the 16,111 total reads, equivalent to 0.01%. A slight disagreement in finding between EP and radiologist accounted for 8.3% of discrepancies.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that plain radiographic studies can be interpreted by EPs with a very low incidence of clinically significant discrepancies when compared to the radiologist interpretation. Due to rare though significant discrepancies, radiologist interpretation should be performed when available. Further studies are needed to determine the generalizability of this study to EDs with differing volume, patient population, acuity, and physician training.

摘要

简介

在许多医院,非工作时间的急诊部(ED)放射照片直到第二天早上才由放射科医生解读,而在服务时则由急诊医师(EP)进行解读。研究发现,急诊医师和训练有素的放射科医生之间的放射学解释差异存在相互矛盾的结果。本研究的目的是确定在社区 ED 环境中 EP 和放射科医生之间的放射学解释差异的数量。

方法

使用预先存在的放射学差异日志以及我们机构的图像存档和通信系统,回顾并以匿名方式记录 2012 年 1 月至 2015 年 1 月期间所有非工作时间的解释差异。我们记录了每位患者获得的放射照片的类型。根据机构协议日志中预先定义的 1-4 级量表记录差异等级,量表定义为:1 级(无需进一步行动);2 级(致电患者或药房);3 级(返回 ED 进一步治疗,例如未固定的骨折);4 级(返回 ED 治疗严重风险,例如气胸、肠梗阻)。我们还记录了 EP 在规定时间内正式解释的放射照片总数,以确定 EP 和放射科医生之间的总体一致性。

结果

在 16111 次 EP 阅读中,有 1044 次差异,表明一致性为 93.5%。患者平均年龄为 48.4±25.0 岁,53.3%为女性;25.1%为 EP 的过度呼叫。大多数差异是较小的,75.8%为 1 级,22.3%为 2 级。只有 1.7%为 3 级,需要返回 ED 进一步治疗。少数差异,0.2%为 4 级。4 级差异占 16111 次总阅读的 2 次,相当于 0.01%。EP 和放射科医生之间的发现略有分歧,占差异的 8.3%。

结论

结果表明,与放射科医生的解释相比,EP 可以非常低的发生率对平片进行解释,且不会出现临床意义上的重大差异。由于差异虽然罕见但却很重要,因此应在有条件时进行放射科医生的解释。需要进一步的研究来确定本研究结果在具有不同容量、患者人群、 acuity 和医师培训的 ED 中的普遍性。

相似文献

1
Radiograph Interpretation Discrepancies in a Community Hospital Emergency Department.社区医院急诊科 X 光片解读差异。
West J Emerg Med. 2019 Jul;20(4):626-632. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2019.1.41375. Epub 2019 Jul 2.
6
Pediatric chest radiograph interpretation in a real-life setting.小儿胸部 X 线片解读在实际环境中的应用。
Eur J Pediatr. 2024 Oct;183(10):4435-4444. doi: 10.1007/s00431-024-05717-x. Epub 2024 Aug 12.
7
Accuracy of radiographic readings in the emergency department.急诊科放射读片的准确性。
Am J Emerg Med. 2011 Jan;29(1):18-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2009.07.011. Epub 2010 Mar 12.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

3
Errors in imaging patients in the emergency setting.急诊环境下对患者进行成像检查时的错误。
Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1061):20150914. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150914. Epub 2016 Feb 3.
6
Accuracy of radiographic readings in the emergency department.急诊科放射读片的准确性。
Am J Emerg Med. 2011 Jan;29(1):18-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2009.07.011. Epub 2010 Mar 12.
8
Accuracy of chest radiograph interpretation by emergency physicians.急诊医生解读胸部X光片的准确性。
Emerg Radiol. 2009 Mar;16(2):111-4. doi: 10.1007/s10140-008-0763-9. Epub 2008 Sep 9.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验