ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2019
Classifying Safety Events Related to Diagnostic Imaging From a Safety Reporting System Using a Human Factors Framework.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Checklists to reduce diagnostic error: a systematic review of the literature using a human factors framework.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- A natural language processing approach to categorise contributing factors from patient safety event reports.BMJ health & care informatics · 2023Article
- Partnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions to coproduce diagnostic safety through OurDX: a previsit online engagement tool.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- A Comparison of Two Scheduling Models for Prompt Resolution of Diagnostic Imaging Orders.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2023Article
- Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission.The Lancet. Oncology · 2021Review
- Patient safety in nuclear medicine: identification of key strategic areas for vigilance and improvement.Nuclear medicine communications · 2020Article
- Application of Human Factors Methods to Understand Missed Follow-up of Abnormal Test Results.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to measure diagnostic imaging safety events reported to an electronic safety reporting system and assess steps at which they occurred within the diagnostic imaging workflow and contributing sociotechnical factors.
methodsThe authors evaluated all electronic safety reporting system reports related to diagnostic imaging during calendar year 2015 at an academic medical center with 50,000 admissions, 950,000 ambulatory visits, and 680,000 diagnostic imaging studies annually. Each report was assigned a harm score ranging from 0 to 4 by the reporter; scores of 2 (minor harm) to 4 (death) were classified as "potential harm." Two reviewers manually classified reports into steps involved in the diagnostic imaging chain and sociotechnical factors per the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety framework. The κ coefficient was used to measure interreviewer agreement on 10% of reports. The percentage of reports that could cause "potential harm" was compared for each step and sociotechnical factor using χ
resultsOf 11,570 safety reports submitted in 2015, 854 (7%) were related to diagnostic imaging. Although the most common step was imaging procedure (54% of reports), potential harm occurred more in result communication (odds ratio, 2.36; P = .05). Person factors most commonly contributed to safety reports (71%). Potential harm occurred more in safety reports that were related to tasks compared with person factors (odds ratio, 5.03; P < .0001). The κ coefficient was 0.79.
conclusionsSafety events were related to diagnostic imaging in 7% of reported events. Potential harm occurred primarily during imaging procedure and result communication. Safety events were attributed to multifactorial sociotechnical factors. Further work is necessary to decrease safety events related to diagnostic imaging.
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.