Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29334237›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018

Safety of working patterns among UK neuroradiologists: what can we learn from the aviation industry and cognitive science?

John Reicher, Stuart Currie, Daniel Birchall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

John Reicher1 Department of Neuroradiology, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Newcastle upon Tyne , UK.
Stuart Currie2 Department of Radiology, Leeds General Infirmary , Leeds , UK.
Daniel Birchall1 Department of Neuroradiology, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Newcastle upon Tyne , UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the volume and complexity of imaging in the UK continues to rise, there is pressure on radiologists to spend increasing lengths of time reporting to cope with the growing workload. However, there is limited guidance for radiologists about structuring the working day to strike the necessary balance between achieving satisfactory reporting volume and maintaining quality and safety. We surveyed 86 neuroradiologists (receiving 59 responses), regarding time spent reporting, frequency and duration of work breaks, and break activities. Our results demonstrate that some neuroradiologists report for up to 12 h a day and for 4 h before taking a break. Mean duration of breaks is less than 15 min and these often consist of computer screen-based or cognitively demanding tasks. Many areas of medicine have looked to the aviation industry to develop improvements in safety through regulated, standardised practices. There are parallels between the work of air traffic controllers (ATCs) and radiologists. We review the legislation that controls the working hours of UK ATCs to minimise fatigue-related errors, and its scientific basis. We also consider the vigilance decrement, a concept in cognitive science which describes the reduction in performance with increasing time-on-task. We conclude that, in comparison with ATCs, work patterns among radiologists are poorly standardised and potentially dangerous. Evidence suggests that placing limits on reporting time and minimum break duration, as well as ensuring appropriate break activities, can benefit reporting quality. It is imperative that radiologists and managers heed these lessons, to improve standards and protect patients from error.

Indexed as

NeuroimagingOccupational HealthRadiologistsWorkloadBurnout, ProfessionalDiagnostic ErrorsFatigueHumansPsychomotor PerformanceSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomWork Schedule Tolerance

Identifiers

PMID29334237
PMCPMC5965984

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.