Optimising neuroimaging effectiveness in a district general hospital

被引:7
作者
McCarron, M. O. [1 ]
Wade, C. [1 ]
McCarron, P. [2 ]
机构
[1] Altnagelvin Hosp, Dept Neurol, Derry BT47 6SB, North Ireland
[2] Queens Univ, Dept Publ Hlth Med & Epidemiol, Belfast, Antrim, North Ireland
关键词
Neuroimaging; district general hospital; neurology; effectiveness;
D O I
10.4997/JRCPE.2014.104
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Diagnostic accuracy in neurology frequently depends on clinical assessment and neuroimaging interpretation. We assessed neuroimaging discrepancy rates in reported findings between general radiologists and neuroradiologists among patients from a district general hospital (DGH). Methods: A neuroradiologist's report was sought on selected DGH patients over 28 months. Pre-planned outcomes included comparisons of primary findings (main diagnosis or abnormality), secondary findings (differential diagnoses and incidental findings) and advice from neuroradiologists for further investigations. Results: A total of 233 patients (119 men and 114 women), mean age 47.2 (SD 17.8) years were studied: 43 had a computed tomography (CT) brain scan only, 37 had CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and 153 had only MRI scans. Discrepancies in the primary diagnosis/abnormality were identified in 33 patients (14.2%). This included 7 of 43 patients (16.3%) who had a CT brain scan as their only neuroimaging. Secondary outcomes differed in 50 patients (21.5%). Neuroradiologists recommended further neuroimaging for 29 patients (12.4%). The most common discrepancies in the primary diagnosis/abnormality were misinterpreting normal for hippocampal sclerosis and missed posterior fossa lesions. There was no evidence of temporal changes in discrepancy rates. Conclusions: Selecting CT and MR neuroimaging studies from general hospitals for reviewing by neuroradiologists is an important and effective way of optimising management of neurological patients.
引用
收藏
页码:14 / 19
页数:6
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]   Quality Control in Neuroradiology: Discrepancies in Image Interpretation among Academic Neuroradiologists [J].
Babiarz, L. S. ;
Yousem, D. M. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY, 2012, 33 (01) :37-42
[2]   Invited article: Neurology and quality improvement - An introduction [J].
Bever, C. T. ;
Holloway, R. G. ;
Iverson, D. J. ;
Dubinsky, R. M. ;
Richardson, R. M. ;
Sheffield, J. K. ;
Wang, D. Z. ;
Franklin, G. M. ;
Miyasaki, J. M. ;
Tonn, S. T. ;
Stevens, J. C. .
NEUROLOGY, 2008, 70 (18) :1636-1640
[3]   Time for a new approach to assessing the quality of hospitals in England [J].
Black, Nick .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 347
[4]  
Brady Adrian, 2012, Ulster Med J, V81, P3
[5]   The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: is there added value? [J].
Briggs, G. M. ;
Flynn, P. A. ;
Worthington, M. ;
Rennie, I. ;
McKinstry, C. S. .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2008, 63 (07) :791-795
[6]   Radiology resident interpretations of on-call imaging studies: The incidence of major discrepancies [J].
Cooper, Victoria F. ;
Goodhartz, Lori A. ;
Nemcek, Albert A., Jr. ;
Ryu, Robert K. .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2008, 15 (09) :1198-1204
[7]   The inpatient neurology consultation service: value and cost [J].
Douglas, M. R. ;
Peake, D. ;
Sturman, S. G. ;
Sivaguru, A. ;
Clarke, C. E. ;
Nichol, D. J. .
CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2011, 11 (03) :215-217
[8]   Liaison neurology for acute medical admissions [J].
Forbes, R ;
Craig, J ;
Callender, M ;
Patterson, V .
CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2004, 4 (03) :290-290
[9]   Error in radiology [J].
Goddard, P ;
Leslie, A ;
Jones, A ;
Wakeley, C ;
Kabala, J .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2001, 74 (886) :949-951
[10]   Improving mammographic interpretation: Double reading and computer-aided diagnosis [J].
Helvie, Mark .
RADIOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2007, 45 (05) :801-+