| Shen LK, Lee J, and Chan WP |
------>authors3_c=None ------>paper_class1=2 ------>Impact_Factor=None ------>paper_class3=0 ------>paper_class2=0 ------>vol= ------>confirm_bywho=wingchan ------>insert_bywho=wingchan ------>Jurnal_Rank=None ------>authors4_c=None ------>comm_author= ------>patent_EDate=None ------>authors5_c=None ------>publish_day=None ------>paper_class2Letter=None ------>page2= ------>medlineContent= ------>unit=E0119 ------>insert_date=20020413 ------>iam=3 ------>update_date= ------>author=??? ------>change_event=5 ------>ISSN=None ------>authors_c=None ------>score=-7 ------>journal_name=???????????????????????? ------>paper_name=Quality Assurance of Duplicate Films ------>confirm_date=20020417 ------>tch_id=085026 ------>pmid=9397430 ------>page1= ------>fullAbstract=It is a common practice in many hospitals to have all skeletal radiographs read by a second physician, usually a radiologist, as well as by the treating physician. A two-part study was performed in order to examine the cost and clinical benefit of this practice for plain films ordered by orthopedists. In the first part of this study, the attending orthopedic surgeons were surveyed about the clinical usefulness and effect on patient care of 1000 radiologic reports from plain films ordered on orthopedic patients. In the second part, the charts of 272 patients who had 704 radiographs were reviewed with the goal of identifying any discrepancies between the orthopedic interpretation and the radiologic reading. Thirty-eight reports were discarded because they were not reports of plain skeletal films. One hundred twenty-nine of the remaining 962 radiologic reports were never read by the attending orthopedist. The average time between the taking of the film and an orthopedic attending reading the printed report was 6.1 days. Three radiology reports contained findings that were incorrect. Only one report contained findings that the orthopedist was unaware, and one report may have led to an alteration in treatment. No reports resulted in an unplanned trip to the operating room or a patient being called back to the clinic. Of the 272 chart reviews (704 reports), 70 had no orthopedic interpretation recorded and 94 had no radiologic report in the chart. Twelve discrepancies were noted in the cases that had both reports. Four fracture displacements were identified by orthopedists, but not on the written radiology report; three of these required a return to the operating room. Four instances of hardware displacement or breakage were noted by orthopedists, but not commented on by the radiologists. Three incidental injuries (two fractures and an acromioclavicular injury) were noted on printed reports of films taken for other reasons, but not commented on by the orthopedist, and not treated. A dorsal bunion was noted on one film by the orthopedist, but not by the radiologist. From this study, one can conclude that the benefit of routine duplicate radiograph interpretation by a second physician does not justify its cost. ------>tmu_sno=None ------>sno=5304 ------>authors2=None ------>authors3=None ------>authors4=None ------>authors5=None ------>authors6=None ------>authors6_c=None ------>authors=Shen LK, Lee J, and Chan WP ------>delete_flag=0 ------>SCI_JNo=None ------>authors2_c=None ------>publish_area=None ------>updateTitle=The clinical utility of duplicate readings for musculoskeletal radiographs. ------>language=2 ------>check_flag= ------>submit_date= ------>country=None ------>no= ------>patent_SDate=None ------>update_bywho= ------>publish_year=2002 ------>submit_flag= ------>publish_month=None |