ArticleMedical journal, Armed Forces India
Patient safety in radiology: Our experience.
Article in Medical journal, Armed Forces India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Present-day radiology departments have very high footfall of patients and are prone to patient safety errors. This study analyses such errors in our hospital. Methods: Observational cross-sectional analysis of errors over the last 30 months was performed. These were classified using the Eindhoven classification model into technical, organizational, and human errors. Technical errors focused on equipment safety. Organizational errors related to policies. Human errors were subclassified as per the skill rule knowledge model. Root cause analysis was performed wherever necessary, and possible mitigation strategies for ensuring safety were suggested. Errors peculiar to the Armed Forces environment were specifically addressed. Results: Seventy-seven errors were analyzed. Two were equipment based including faulty pressure injector syringes and radiation leakage from the computed tomography gantry. Of 44 skill-based errors, 09 involved dispatch of wrong reports to dependents owing to identifying patients with serving personnel's name. Four were due to scanning wrong sites. Eleven involved reporting abnormality on the wrong side. Six involved underreporting due to not viewing specific images. The rest were due to failure to omit conflicting elements in the report. Rule-based errors included wrong protocol selection (9 errors), omitting a particular sequence due to individual preference (6 errors), and so on. Knowledge-based errors were due to misinterpretation of findings (4 errors), reporting an abnormality as normal (3 errors), and selection of wrong modality (3 errors). Conclusion: The findings of this study highlights the importance of voluntary reporting, diligent recording, and in-depth analysis of errors for understanding the causes and formulating possible mitigation strategies.
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.