Department of Radiology, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA; Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
American College of Radiology, Reston, VA.
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2022 Jul-Aug;51(4):486-490. doi: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2021.08.003. Epub 2021 Aug 29.
To compare non-physician healthcare professional and radiologists' survey responses regarding attitudes and current practices, policies, and procedures related to the follow-up of nonemergent actionable incidental findings (AIF).
The American College of Radiology (ACR) developed a survey with input from a technical expert panel (TEP). Survey items were developed by TEP members, refined by an ACR market research expert, and were examined for face and construct validity. The survey was distributed among ACR membership and various medical professional organizations. Responses from non-physician responders and radiologists were analyzed and compared using descriptive statistics.
The analysis included 375 responses, 247 from radiologists and 128 from non-physicians. All respondent groups stated that radiology follow-up recommendations are evidence-based. Both respondent groups indicated that there is up to moderate risk associated with AIF follow-up. Both respondent groups similarly favored that the accountability for communicating AIF lies first with the ordering provider, followed by primary care providers, then the patient, and lastly an automated process that is managed by a staff member and/or the radiologist. All respondent groups indicated that tracking processes were more commonly funded by the healthcare system than through the radiology budget.
There is alignment between non-physicians and radiologists regarding the implementation of tracking systems that assure completion of radiology follow-up recommendations. Building tracking systems represents an opportunity for multi-disciplinary collaboration to address care transition communication and process gaps.
比较非医师医疗保健专业人员和放射科医生在与非紧急可行动偶发发现（AIF）随访相关的态度、当前实践、政策和程序方面的调查回应。
美国放射学院（ACR）在技术专家小组（TEP）的参与下开发了一项调查。调查项目由 TEP 成员制定，由 ACR 市场研究专家进行完善，并对其进行了表面和结构有效性检查。该调查分发给 ACR 会员和各种医疗专业组织。使用描述性统计方法分析和比较非医师应答者和放射科医生的应答。
分析包括 375 份答复，其中 247 份来自放射科医生，128 份来自非医师。所有应答者群体都表示放射科随访建议是基于证据的。两个应答者群体都表示 AIF 随访存在中度至高度风险。两个应答者群体都同样赞成沟通 AIF 的责任首先在于开单提供者，其次是初级保健提供者，然后是患者，最后是由员工和/或放射科医生管理的自动流程。所有应答者群体都表示，跟踪流程通常由医疗保健系统资助，而不是通过放射科预算。
在实施跟踪系统以确保完成放射科随访建议方面，非医师和放射科医生之间存在一致性。建立跟踪系统为多学科合作提供了机会，可以解决医疗保健过渡沟通和流程差距问题。
