FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2015619641> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2015619641 endingPage "S19" @default.
• W2015619641 startingPage "S19" @default.
• W2015619641 abstract "Clinical Radiology 69 (2014) S11eS21 S19 Results of 1st audit round: CTavg 27%, median 15%, range 0-90% CRavg 11%, median 8%, range 2-38% 1 CR report made no sense. Targets not met. Types of errors similar sounding words, lack of punctuations, words cut off, extra words. 1st action plan: 1. Presented at departmental and hospital audit meeting 2. Recommend RIS that would support auto-transcription of ’clinical details’ 3. Feedback to reporter 4. Repeat audit in 6 months Results of 2nd round: March April 2014. CTe avg 23%; median 5%; range 0-100% CReavg18%; median 8%; range 2e84% Targets not met. Reporter A continues to have high VR error rate. Other reporters have good improvement. Overall improvement in CT errors. CR errors have deteriorated. Errors are mainly of voice recognition and punctuation. Majority of errors are mild and in clinical details. 2nd action plan:1. Present at departmental audit meeting 2. Urgent recommendation of RIS that would support auto-transcription of ‘clinical details’ 3. Feedback to reporter Radiology registrar on-call reporting accuracy Authors: Victoria Chan*, Heiko Peschl, Matthew Smedley, Nassim Parvizi, James Briggs Background: At our Trust, oncall registrars (ST3+) issue verified reports, subsequently checked by consultants within 24 hours. Clinical teams should be contacted when there are discrepancies to allow for changes in management. Standard, indicator and target: An RCR AuditLive template proposed a 2-5% error rate for on-call reporting (2% for significant errors,5% for all discrepancies affecting management). Methodology: All on-call registrar reports were comparedwith consultant addendums for February 2013.Discrepancies were categorised according to grading system, 1 1⁄4 minor error with no significance,2 1⁄4 minor error affecting long-term outcome, 3 1⁄4 major error affecting long-term outcome,4 1⁄4 major error affecting immediate outcome. Results of 1st audit round: Total of 646 reports,77(11.9%) had corrections:22 scored1(3.4%),25 scored2(3.9%),22 scored3(3.4%),8 scored4(1.2%). 1st action plan: This audit demonstrates that issuing on-call reports by registrars is safe with only a small proportion of acutely significant discrepancies.It also emphasises the value of Consultant review, with subsequent amendments impacting upon management. Results of 2nd round: Follow-up audit for February 2014 had total of 770 reports,66(8.6%) had corrections:34 scored 1(4.4%),17 scored 2(2.2%),13 scored 3(1.7%),2 scored 4(0.3%). 2nd action plan: Again, the on-call registrar reporting accuracywaswithin ’general target’ despite increased workload in 2014.Nevertheless,we recommend regularmonitoring of on-call workload and registrar reporting accuracy to ensure a high standard for patient care and safety. Unexpected findings e the importance of safety nets Authors: Sean J. McIlhone*, Bhavin Rawal, Jeremy Lynch, Priya Narayanan, Catriona Davies Background: Timely communication of reports and alerting clinicans to critical/unexpected findings is essential for patient safety and in preventing serious untoward incidents. Following the RCR’s updated guidance on this issue (1), we audited the existing ’safety net’ procedures in our imaging department. * Guarantor and correspondent: Victoria Chan * Guarantor and correspondent: Sean J. McIlhone * Guarantor and correspondent: Jessie Gil * Guarantor and correspondent: Matthew Pickford Standard, indicator and target: 100% of patients with unexpected findings should either: Have their report faxed to the referring clinician or Be added to a relevant MDT meeting for discussion. Methodology: Data Set: All emails regarding unexpected findings that were sent to radiology secretaries during a one month period (November 2013) were retrieved from the radiology information system. These emails may request for the report to be urgently faxed to the referring clinician OR request that the patient is added to the relevant MDT meeting. Hospital records were then analysed to ensure these patients had been followed up as appropriate. Results of 1st audit round: Of the email requests for a report to be faxed, 94% (50/53) had records confirming that a fax had been sent. Average time lag 1⁄4 3 days Of the email requests for MDT discussion, 90% (43/48) of patient records confirmed they were discussed at MDT. Average time lag 1⁄4 7 days All remaining patients were accounted for and followed up. 1st action plan: 1. Standardise the format of email requests and of the electronic record showing the request was actioned 2. Departmental meeting to suggest a more robust and failsafe method of communicating urgent findings to clinicians Patient satisfaction with day case provision of interventional radiology procedures Authors: Jessie Gil*, James H. Briggs, Brenda Shanahan, Mark Bratby, Raman Uberoi Background: Day case intervention reduces patient stay, can improve patient experience and reduce overall procedural cost. Provision of good patient experience an important measure of care. Standard, indicator and target: Standards were locally agreed, based on NICE standards (1) . 90% of patients should have been pre-assessed and 90% should receive written information in advance. We wished for mean satisfaction score of 4 out of 5. Methodology: Patient perception was assessed using a 13 part survey comprising binary questions and scaled responses (1-very poor to 5excellent). Data were collected over eight weeks. Results of 1st audit round: 53 patients were surveyed. 93% had preadmission consultation. 86.7% had received written information. Mean scores to other questions all met the agreed standard. 1st action plan: Improved systems for administering information leaflets. Results of 2nd round: 52 Patients were surveyed. 76.9%were pre-assessed by telephone or in person, fewer than 50% of patients received written information and 3.8% had no pre-admission information. Standards for satisfactionwith the consent process and addressing consent questions were again met. Patients were highly satisfied with the availability of staff to answer questions and their reassurance post-procedure. Overall patient satisfaction was ’very good’ or better. 2nd action plan: Overall satisfaction was increased and met targets, but improved administration to ensure higher rates of pre-assessment and written information provision is required. Non-contrast CT KUB in acute renal colic Authors: Matthew Pickford*, George Yeung Background: We perceived a low diagnostic yield for CT KUB when balanced against radiation exposure in our younger patients, particularly young women. We therefore audited our detection rates for stones and other significant pathology. Standard, indicator and target: The highest and lowest detection rates identified by literature review for stones and other significant pathology" @default.
• W2015619641 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2015619641 creator A5013525908 @default.
• W2015619641 creator A5028087990 @default.
• W2015619641 creator A5040804506 @default.
• W2015619641 creator A5080059869 @default.
• W2015619641 creator A5086939773 @default.
• W2015619641 date "2014-09-01" @default.
• W2015619641 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2015619641 title "Radiology registrar on-call reporting accuracy" @default.
• W2015619641 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2014.05.082" @default.
• W2015619641 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2015619641 type Work @default.
• W2015619641 sameAs 2015619641 @default.
• W2015619641 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2015619641 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2015619641 hasAuthorship W2015619641A5013525908 @default.
• W2015619641 hasAuthorship W2015619641A5028087990 @default.
• W2015619641 hasAuthorship W2015619641A5040804506 @default.
• W2015619641 hasAuthorship W2015619641A5080059869 @default.
• W2015619641 hasAuthorship W2015619641A5086939773 @default.
• W2015619641 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W2015619641 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2015619641 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2015619641 hasConcept C199521495 @default.
• W2015619641 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2015619641 hasConceptScore W2015619641C121955636 @default.
• W2015619641 hasConceptScore W2015619641C144133560 @default.
• W2015619641 hasConceptScore W2015619641C19527891 @default.
• W2015619641 hasConceptScore W2015619641C199521495 @default.
• W2015619641 hasConceptScore W2015619641C71924100 @default.
• W2015619641 hasLocation W20156196411 @default.
• W2015619641 hasOpenAccess W2015619641 @default.
• W2015619641 hasPrimaryLocation W20156196411 @default.
• W2015619641 hasRelatedWork W10373524 @default.
• W2015619641 hasRelatedWork W13559129 @default.
• W2015619641 hasRelatedWork W13771369 @default.
• W2015619641 hasRelatedWork W14921385 @default.
• W2015619641 hasRelatedWork W19596327 @default.
• W2015619641 hasRelatedWork W22099029 @default.
• W2015619641 hasRelatedWork W22194040 @default.
• W2015619641 hasRelatedWork W4526146 @default.
• W2015619641 hasRelatedWork W7419374 @default.
• W2015619641 hasRelatedWork W8778895 @default.
• W2015619641 hasVolume "69" @default.
• W2015619641 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2015619641 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2015619641 magId "2015619641" @default.
• W2015619641 workType "article" @default.