ArticleCureus2024
Assessing and Enhancing the Adequacy of Radiology Request Forms at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Sudan: A Clinical Audit.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical auditing is one method of improving the quality of patient care. Radiology request forms (RRFs) are crucial for the purpose of facilitating communication between the radiologist or radiographer and the referring clinician.
methodsA two-cycle clinical audit was conducted at the Radiology Department of Atbara Police Hospital in Khartoum, Sudan. A total of 100 forms were collected, with 50 forms from each cycle. As an intervention, the existing blank paper format for radiology requests was replaced with a structured form based on the standards of the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR). This new form was distributed hospital-wide, and doctors were educated on its use through presentations and briefings. The collected forms were then compared against the RCR standards for completeness and accuracy. Data were entered into Microsoft Excel 2016 for analysis.
resultsThe interventions led to notable improvements in several areas. Accuracy in recording the patient's address, phone number, and location increased from 0 (0%) in the first cycle to 50 (100%) in the second cycle, marking a 100% improvement. In addition, referencing the patient's age improved from 15 (30%) in the first cycle to 50 (100%) in the second cycle, indicating a 70% increase. The mean score for RRF documentation was 25.33% in the first cycle and significantly increased to 97.77% in the second cycle.
conclusionThe audit shows significant improvement in RRFs post-intervention, highlighting the importance of standardization. However, deficiencies point to the need for orientation and follow-up training for physicians to ensure accurate form completion. Integrating quality assurance, including periodic audits and real-time feedback, can help sustain these gains. Collaboration between radiologists and referring physicians is also essential for ongoing improvement.
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.