Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30542751›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2019

Clinicians' perceptions of the quality of outsourced radiology and actions taken around perceived imaging errors in practice.

Yitka Graham, Catherine Hayes, Pallavi Mehrotra, Jonathan Spratt, Kathryn Siddle, Julie Cox

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yitka GrahamDepartment of Radiology, City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Kayll Road, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, SR4 7TP, UK. yitka.graham@sunderland.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6206-1461
Catherine HayesFaculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, University of Sunderland, Sciences Complex, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, SR1 3SD, UK.
Pallavi MehrotraDepartment of Radiology, City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Kayll Road, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, SR4 7TP, UK.
Jonathan SprattDepartment of Radiology, City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Kayll Road, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, SR4 7TP, UK.
Kathryn SiddleDepartment of Radiology, City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Kayll Road, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, SR4 7TP, UK.
Julie CoxDepartment of Radiology, City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Kayll Road, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, SR4 7TP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOutsourcing of radiological reporting services has fundamentally altered communication between radiologists and clinicians in clinical decision making, which relies heavily on diagnostic imaging. The aim of this study was to understand clinicians' perspectives and experiences of interpretation of outsourced reports in clinical practice, if the author of imaging reports matters to clinicians, and actions taken to deal with perceived errors.

methodsA printed survey was distributed to a purposive sample of 50 of the 250 senior medical and surgical staff of a large National Health Service hospital in the UK who regularly engaged with the Radiology Department between May and October 2017, representing 20% of this hospital workforce. The survey consisted of ten questions examining clinicians' opinions on radiology reporting, with comment options to encourage respondents to give further detail. Participants were requested to return the survey to the study investigators.

resultsThe survey elicited a 100% response rate (n = 50). A constant comparative framework was used to guide analysis, revealing themes relevant to the ongoing inter-professional relationship between clinicians and radiologists. The disparity between in-house and externally sourced radiology reports and underlying issues of trust surrounding outsourced reports were the most significant themes identified.

conclusionsThis study found outsourcing of radiology reporting needs multi-disciplinary team availability regarding the interpretation and discussions around capacity for effective communication. It raises important issues around often under-acknowledged additional workloads imposed on in-house radiologists. There are financial and pragmatic clinical aspects in pathways of radiology practice which require further research and examination. KEY POINTS: • Utilisation of outsourcing is increasing in practice in response to imaging demands. • Outsourcing increases departmental primary reporting capacity but may increase the workload of the local radiologist. • The development of strategies for outsourcing examinations may lessen demands on the in-house workforce.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelQuality of Health CareDiagnostic ErrorsEnglandHumansOutsourced ServicesRadiologistsRadiologyState MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkloadClinical decision makingOutsourcingWorkload

Identifiers

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.