Critical Findings Reporting in Cranial CT Scans of Patients in a Tertiary Government Hospital Setting. A Pilot Study.
Objective: Effective communication among health care providers within an institution is vital for ensuring patient safety. A radiologist’s competence in identifying critical findings is just as important as being able to relay this information to the primary provider in a timely manner so that appropriate interventions can be initiated in life-threatening emergencies. This study aims to obtain baseline data regarding effective communication of critical findings between radiology and the primary health care providers. Materials and Methods: Based on the Massachusetts’s Coalition for Prevention of Medical Errors safe practice recommendations, a communication protocol was developed. Certain selected cranial critical findings (new hemorrhage, new herniation, acute brain edema, acute stroke and findings suggestive of meningitis or abscess) were used in the critical findings protocol. Total communication time in the relay of critical findings included time from CT scan order to scan, time from scan to interpretation and time from interpretation to relay. All these times were recorded and compared to the standard 60 minutes using percent compliance, mean time, median time and standard deviation. Results: Seventy-nine (79) critical findings were recorded and relayed in a 30-day period. There was 100% (79/79) compliance with the relay of critical findings to the primary care team and 97.5% (77/79) success rate in direct communication of critical findings within 60 minutes of identification. The mean time from CT scan order to scan was 155.09 (±134.43) minutes, mean time from scan to interpretation was 46.54 (±44.01) minutes, and mean time from interpretation to relay was 9.13 (±12.04) minutes. The average time elapsed from CT study acquisition to direct notification was 57.0 (± 45.80) minutes. Conclusion: Effective communication of critical findings using a protocol adopted from set standards of safe practice recommendations is achievable in our institution. The proposed protocol exhibited compliance to and performed well against established benchmarks. The timely identification and delivery of critical findings to the primary care team is central to patient management and should be practiced in our setting.
___
[1] Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Quality & safety in health care. 2004; 13(Suppl 1): i85-i90. doi:10.1136/ qshc.2004.010033.[2] Dingley C, Daugherty K, Derieg MK, et al. Improving Patient Safety Through Provider Communication Strategy Enhancements. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, et al., editors. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol. 3: Performance and Tools). Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); [Online] 2008 Aug. [Cited 2019 August] Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/ NBK43663/
[3] Woolf S. H., Kuzel A. J., Dovey S. M., et al. A String of Mistakes: The Importance of Cascade Analysis in Describing, Counting, and Preventing Medical Errors. Annals of Family Medicine. 2004; 2(4):317-326 DOI: 10.1370/afm.126.
[4] ACR practice parameter for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. [Online]. 2014 [Cited 2018 August]. Available from https://www.acr.org/ClinicalResources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards/ Practice-Parameters-for-Documentation-and-Reporting.
[5] Gershanik EF, Lacson R, Khorasani R. Critical finding capture in the impression section of radiology reports. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011; 2011:465–469.
[6] The Joint Commission. About Us [Online]. 2018 [Cited 2018 August] Available from https://www.jointcommission. org/about_us/about_the_joint_commission_main.aspx.
[7] Khorasani R. Optimizing communication of critical test results. J Am Coll Radiology. 2009; 6(10): 721–723. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2009.07.011
[8] Viertel V.G., Trotter S.A., Babiarz L. S., et al. Reporting of Critical Findings in Neuroradiology. AJR American Journal of Radiology. 2013; 200(5):1132-1137 DOI:10.2214/ AJR.12.9041
[9] Hanna D., Griswold P., Leape L., et al. Communicating Critical Test Results: Safe Practice Recommendations. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2005; 31(2): 68-80.
[10] Trotter SA, Babiarz LS, Viertel VG, et al. Determination and communication of critical findings in neuroradiology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(1):45–50.
[11] Honig SE, Honig EL, Babiarz LB, et al. Critical Findings: Timing of Notification in Neuroradiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014; 35(8):1485-1492. DOI: https://doi. org/10.3174/ajnr.A3918
- ISSN: 2147-9488
- Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
- Başlangıç: 2012
- Yayıncı: HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler
Stroke-Like Hemiparesis During Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Treatment
İnci Yaman BAJİN, Barış KUŞKONMAZ, Şule ÜNAL, Mualla ÇETİN, Selin ARDALI, Kader KARLI OĞUZ, Fatma GÜMRÜK
Aquaporins: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on the Water Channel Proteins
Gokce ALP, Ipek BOSGELMEZ, Yesim OZTAS
Andro Reginald L. LİCAROS, Johanna Patricia A. CANAL
Ulas KUMBASAR, EMİNE İPEK ÖZBEK SÖNMEZ, Zeynelabidin OZTURK, Recep Oktay PEKER, Saniye EKİNCİ, Benan BAYRAKCİ, Mustafa YİLMAZ, Riza DOGAN