ArticleJournal of digital imaging2016
Online Error Reporting for Managing Quality Control Within Radiology.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Collaborative Development of a PACS-Integrated Quality Control Dashboard: a Single Institutional Experience.Journal of digital imaging · 2022Article
- Quality Assurance of a Cross-Border and Sub-Specialized Teleradiology Service.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Detecting Technical Image Quality in Radiology Reports.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
- Implementation of a Point-of-Care Radiologist-Technologist Communication Tool in a Quality Assurance Program.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2017Article
- Value-Based Assessment of Radiology Reporting Using Radiologist-Referring Physician Two-Way Feedback System-a Design Thinking-Based Approach.Journal of digital imaging · 2017Article
- Medical error reporting software program development and its impact on pediatric units' reporting medical errors.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.