Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Cureus ; 16(2): e53926, 2024 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38465114

ABSTRACT

Background Radiology reports are important medico-legal documents facilitating communication between radiologists and referring doctors. Language clarity and precision are crucial for effective communication in these reports. Radiology reporting has changed with the evolution of imaging technology, prompting the adoption of precise terminology. Diagnostic certainty phrases (DCPs) play an important role in communicating diagnostic confidence in radiology reports. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of DCPs in radiology reports, before and after targeted educational interventions. Materials and methods The study was approved by the Aga Khan University Hospital's Ethical Review Committee and includes cross-sectional radiology reports. It involved three cycles of retrospective evaluation, with educational interventions in between to improve the use of DCPs. Results The study found a dynamic shift in the use of DCPs during the three cycles. Initially, intermediate-certainty phrases prevailed, followed by an increase in high-certainty phrases and a drop in low-certainty phrases. Later cycles showed a significant decline in DCPs and an increase in the use of definitive language. Across all subspecialties, there was a consistent decrease in intermediate- and low-certainty DCPs. Conclusion The study validates the transformative impact of educational interventions on the use of DCPs in radiology reports. The radiology reports frequently used DCPs with intermediate to low diagnostic certainty with improvement in the subsequent cycles of the study after educational interventions. It emphasizes the significance of continuing education to ensure the use of precise nomenclature.

2.
Cureus ; 14(9): e29672, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36320981

ABSTRACT

Introduction Pneumothorax is a common medical emergency and has potentially life-threatening consequences, so it is important for radiology residents and consultants to know its radiographic appearance so that timely diagnosis and appropriate management can be done. Patients with pneumothorax have nonspecific complaints, and clinical examinations are not confirmatory. The chest X-ray is easily available and has high accuracy in the detection of pneumothorax. The aim of this study is to determine the agreement between the on-call radiology resident and the attending radiologist in the diagnosis of pneumothorax on chest radiographs. Materials and methods This cross-sectional study was performed in the Department of Radiology at Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi. After approval from the ethical review committee (ERC), the study was carried out. A total of 174 patients were included in the study. The resident interpreting the radiograph commented on the pneumothorax and recorded it on the "Comments" section of the picture archiving and communication system (PACS). Further entries were made in the department's "Panic Logbook." Subsequently, the final report by the attending radiologist was tallied, and the decision of both the resident and the attending radiologist regarding the presence or absence of pneumothorax was compared for interobserver agreement. Results Of the 174 patients, 139 (79.9%) were male and 35 (20.1%) were female. The mean age of the patients was 45.6 ± 12.4 years. Pneumothorax was reported by the resident in 164 (94.25%) cases, while the attending radiologist reported it in 167 (96%) cases. The remaining 4% of cases were ultimately diagnosed on a CT scan of the chest performed at the request of the primary team; they were too small to be detected on a chest radiograph. The most common side involved was the right side, with 112 (64.4%) cases, followed by the left side with 55 (31.6%) and both sides with five (2.9%), while in two cases, pneumothorax was not reported by the resident and the attending radiologist. The position of the pneumothorax was as follows: apex in 80 (46%), base in 56 (32.2%), and along the lateral border of the lung in 93 (53.4%). Concordance between the resident and the radiologist was found to be 92.5% (kappa = 0.20; p = 0.008). Stratification for age, gender, the position of pneumothorax, and the level of residency was also carried out. Conclusion In our setting, there was a high level of agreement (92.5%) between the resident and the attending radiologist in reporting pneumothorax on chest radiographs (kappa = 0.20; p = 0.008).

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...