Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32725602›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2021

Survey of radiologists and emergency department providers after implementation of a global radiology report categorization system.

Eric L Tung, Elizabeth H Dibble, Gaurav Jindal, Jonathan S Movson, David W Swenson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. The effect of a clock's presence on trauma resuscitation times in a Dutch level-1 trauma center: a pre-post cohort analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Observational
  3. 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

5 authors.

Eric L TungDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 3rd floor Main Building, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, 02903, USA. erictung34@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1628-9032
Elizabeth H DibbleDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 3rd floor Main Building, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Gaurav JindalDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 3rd floor Main Building, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Jonathan S MovsonDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 3rd floor Main Building, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
David W SwensonDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 3rd floor Main Building, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBreakdown in communication of important imaging results threatens patient safety and risks malpractice claims. To facilitate closed-loop communication, our institution developed a unique radiology report categorization (RADCAT) system employing automated alert notification systems. This study aimed to understand users' initial experiences with the RADCAT system and obtain feedback.

methodsWeb-based surveys were distributed to radiologists and emergency department (ED) providers at our hospital system within 1 year of institution-wide RADCAT implementation. Survey designs differed based on clinical setting. Most prompts utilized declarative statements with 5-point agreement Likert scales. Closed-response data was analyzed with descriptive statistics.

resultsResponse rates among radiologists and ED providers were 59.4% (63/106) and 38.4% (69/211), respectively. 78.0% (46/59) of radiologists and 60.9% (42/69) of ED providers agreed that RADCAT improves patient care. Of radiologists, 84.1% (53/63) agreed that RADCAT design is intuitive, and 57.6% (34/59) agreed that RADCAT improves efficiency. Of ED providers, 69.6% (48/69) agreed that RADCAT appropriately differentiates urgent and non-urgent findings, and 65.2% (45/69) agreed that auto-population of discharge documents with imaging results containing follow-up recommendations protects them from liability. Only 35.6% (21/59) of radiologists and 21.7% (15/69) of ED providers agreed that RADCAT implementation decreased reading room visits by ordering providers. Open-response feedback showed that some ED providers find RADCAT too complex while some radiologists desire improved transparency regarding imaging study communication status.

conclusionSince its implementation, RADCAT has been well received among radiologists and ED providers with agreement that it improves patient care and effectively distinguishes and communicates important imaging findings.

Indexed as

Hospital Communication SystemsInterdisciplinary CommunicationRadiologistsAdultElectronic Health RecordsEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesAlert notificationCommunication systemCritical test resultInformation technology solutionsSatisfaction surveyStructured reporting

Identifiers

PMID32725602

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.