Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33550526›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2021

Computed tomography technologist notes in PACS to radiologists: what are they telling us and how does it increase value?

Corey T Jensen, Sanaz Javadi, Priya Bhosale, Ahmed W Moawad, Mohammed Saleh, Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan, Ajaykumar C Morani

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Corey T JensenDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Street, Unit 1473, Houston, TX, 77030-4009, USA. cjensen@mdanderson.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6540-8961
Sanaz JavadiDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Street, Unit 1473, Houston, TX, 77030-4009, USA.
Priya BhosaleDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Street, Unit 1473, Houston, TX, 77030-4009, USA.
Ahmed W MoawadDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Street, Unit 1473, Houston, TX, 77030-4009, USA.
Mohammed SalehDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Street, Unit 1473, Houston, TX, 77030-4009, USA.
Dhakshinamoorthy GaneshanDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Street, Unit 1473, Houston, TX, 77030-4009, USA.
Ajaykumar C MoraniDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Street, Unit 1473, Houston, TX, 77030-4009, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn the clinical workflow of radiology services, a critical connection exists between technologists and radiologists, yet there is often limited communication between this key link in the chain of patient imaging. Our aim was to quantify and detail the communication between CT technologists and radiologists in our tertiary oncology practice.

methodsUsing the note function in our EMR, as standard operating procedure, CT technologists are instructed to place pertinent notes for the radiologist relevant to any portion of the patient encounter. Note categories pertain to quality and/or safety: patient limitations (e.g., patient unable to raise arm), protocol confirmation (e.g., rectal contrast given), critical finding communication, scan range considerations, IV issues, reduction in eGFR, oral contrast issues, allergy information, general feedback, equipment malfunction, and radiologist approval information. The percentage of notes within each category were recorded upon review of contiguous abdominal CT scans in July 2018 with the primary outcome measure of overall note volume compared to baseline in July 2016 after which time technologists were educated on the importance of notes and were requested to increase use of this tool. Notes were regularly reviewed to identify practice improvement opportunities.

resultsCompared to baseline 2 years earlier (8860 CT scans, 812 technologist notes), there was a 32% increase in technologist note volume (10,948 CT scans, 1330 technologist notes), representing an increase of notes from 9.2% of exams to 12.1% of exams (p < .001) and there were 14 related practice improvements.

conclusionAfter communicating the importance of CT technologist notes and requesting increased notation frequency, technologist note volume significantly increased and 14 specific case examples of related practice improvement demonstrate the electronic medical record note function to be a robust tool in the management of patient imaging.

Indexed as

RadiologistsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAbdomenCommunicationElectronic Health RecordsHumansAbdomenCTImprovementPACSQuality

Identifiers

PMID33550526
PMCPMC8205955
OpenAlexW3127467433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.