Simple changes to the reporting environment produce a large reduction in the frequency of interruptions to the reporting radiologist: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Interruptions are a cause of discrepancy, errors, and potential safety incidents in radiology. The sources of radiological error are multifactorial and strategies to reduce error should include measures to reduce interruptions. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of simple changes in the reporting environment on the frequency of interruptions to the reporting radiologist of a hospital radiology department. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective observational study was carried out. The number and type of potentially disruptive events (PDEs) to the radiologist reporting inpatient computed tomography (CT) scans were recorded during 20 separate 1-h observation periods during both pre- and post-intervention phases. The interventions were (i) relocation of the radiologist to a private, quiet room, and (ii) initial vetting of clinician enquiries via a separate duty radiologist. RESULTS: After the intervention there was an 82% reduction in the number of frank interruptions (PDEs that require the radiologist to abandon the reporting task) from a median 6 events per hour to 1 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4-6; P < 0.00001). The overall number of PDEs was reduced by 56% from a median 11 events per hour to 5 (95% CI = 4.5-11: P < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: Relocation of inpatient CT reporting to a private, quiet room, coupled with vetting of clinician enquiries via the duty radiologist, resulted in a large reduction in the frequency of interruptions, a frequently cited avoidable source of radiological error.

Is water-soluble contrast enema examination for integrity of rectal anastomosis necessary prior to ileostomy reversal?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Routine use of water-soluble contrast enema (WSCE) to assess anastomotic integrity is debated. This study aimed to evaluate the role of WSCE to assess anastomotic integrity following anterior resections (AR) with defunctioning stoma prior to reversal and identify factors to limit its selective use. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated all WSCE performed over a 7-year period at a high-volume colorectal unit. Risk factors for radiological abnormality/leak, including malignancy, chemoradiotherapy, and immediate postoperative complications, were recorded. A gastrointestinal specialist radiologist and surgeon validated all WSCEs reported as abnormal. RESULTS: Of the 486 WSCE studies identified, 92 were excluded (repeat studies (n = 51), pediatric cases [n = 2], no AR [n = 39]). A total of 394 WSCE studies were evaluated (260 cancer; 134 noncancer patients); 14% (37/260) of cancer patients and 8% (10/134) of noncancer patients had abnormal studies (P = 0.072). Of the 37 abnormal studies in cancer patients, 73% (27/37) radiological leaks were found, and 41% (n = 11/27) of these patients had postoperative complications. Of the 10 abnormal studies in noncancer patients, 20% (2/10) radiological leaks were found, but none of these patients had postoperative complications. Overall leak rates were 7% (29/394), and rates were significantly higher in cancer patients than noncancer patients (10 vs 2%, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Routine use of WSCE may not be necessary prior to reversal. WSCE should be selectively used in event of postoperative leak or complications. Noncancer resections are less likely demonstrate a leak.