Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26510753›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2016

Online Error Reporting for Managing Quality Control Within Radiology.

Pedram Golnari, Daniel Forsberg, Beverly Rosipko, Jeffrey L Sunshine

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Detecting Technical Image Quality in Radiology Reports.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Pedram GolnariDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.
Daniel ForsbergDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.
Beverly RosipkoDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.
Jeffrey L SunshineDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA. Jeffrey.Sunshine@UHhospitals.org.
University Hospitals Case Medical Center · USSectra (Sweden) · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Information technology systems within health care, such as picture archiving and communication system (PACS) in radiology, can have a positive impact on production but can also risk compromising quality. The widespread use of PACS has removed the previous feedback loop between radiologists and technologists. Instead of direct communication of quality discrepancies found for an examination, the radiologist submitted a paper-based quality-control report. A web-based issue-reporting tool can help restore some of the feedback loop and also provide possibilities for more detailed analysis of submitted errors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the hypothesis that data from use of an online error reporting software for quality control can focus our efforts within our department. For the 372,258 radiologic examinations conducted during the 6-month period study, 930 errors (390 exam protocol, 390 exam validation, and 150 exam technique) were submitted, corresponding to an error rate of 0.25 %. Within the category exam protocol, technologist documentation had the highest number of submitted errors in ultrasonography (77 errors [44 %]), while imaging protocol errors were the highest subtype error for computed tomography modality (35 errors [18 %]). Positioning and incorrect accession had the highest errors in the exam technique and exam validation error category, respectively, for nearly all of the modalities. An error rate less than 1 % could signify a system with a very high quality; however, a more likely explanation is that not all errors were detected or reported. Furthermore, staff reception of the error reporting system could also affect the reporting rate.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ErrorsSoftwareDiagnostic ImagingHumansQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality ControlRadiologyRadiology Information SystemsRisk ManagementPACSQuality assuranceWeb technology

Identifiers

PMID26510753
PMCPMC4879025
OpenAlexW1889441838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.