Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:00:53.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A two-cycle prospective audit of temporal bone computed tomography scan requests: improving the clinical applicability of radiology reports

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2014

A Qureishi ,
G Garas ,
J Shah  and
J Birchall
A Qureishi*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
G Garas
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
J Shah
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroradiology, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
J Birchall
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr A Qureishi, 9 Cranbourne Close, Slough SL1 2XH, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Radiologists require accurate clinical information to formulate reports. This is particularly relevant to computed tomography of the temporal bone, in which previous surgery can mimic disease.

Objectives:

The information provided with temporal bone computed tomography scan requests was evaluated. The study aimed to minimise inappropriate requests and improve the clinical value of reports.

Method:

A two-cycle prospective audit was undertaken using a proforma designed on the basis of national guidelines. Following the first cycle (in which the requests and reports of 100 scans were evaluated), new guidelines and training were implemented. A follow-up audit (of 50 scans) was then performed.

Results:

Following intervention, the percentage of clinically relevant reports increased from 52 to 94 (p < 0.01), whilst unnecessary or inappropriate scan requests decreased from 11 to 2 per cent (p < 0.05).

Conclusion:

Optimising the clinical value of temporal bone computed tomography scan requests will have positive implications for patient care, time management and cost. The quality of the clinical information provided can have a significant impact on the clinical value of radiology reports, and can mean that unnecessary irradiation is avoided.

Keywords

Computed Tomography, X-RayTemporal BoneRadiologyClinical Audit
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 128 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 49 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented orally at the Royal Society of Medicine, 5 October 2012, London, UK.

References

1Sistrom, CL, Langlotz, CP. A framework for improving radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 2005;2:159–67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Rickett, AB, Finlay, DB, Jagger, C. The importance of clinical details when reporting accident and emergency radiographs. Injury 1992;23:458–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Boonn, W, Langlotz, CP. Radiologist use of and perceived need for patient data access. J Digit Imaging 2009;22:357–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Leslie, A, Jones, A, Goddard, P. The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by radiologists. Brit J Radiology 2000;73:1052–5Google Scholar
5Loy, CT, Irwig, L. Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical information: a systematic review. JAMA 2004;292:1602–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6The Royal College of Radiologists. Standards for the Reporting and Interpretation of Imaging Investigations. London: Royal College of Radiologists, 2006Google Scholar
7Savage, JR, Weiner, GM. Litigation in otolaryngology – trends and recommendations. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:1001–4Google Scholar
8Powell, J, Cooles, FA, Carrie, S, Paleri, V. Is undergraduate medical education working for ENT surgery? A survey of UK medical school graduates. J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:896–905Google Scholar