ArticleCureus2025
Enhancing Radiology Request Form Completeness With a Standardized Tool and Targeted Education: A Two-Cycle Clinical Audit.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncomplete radiology request forms (RRFs) hinder diagnostic accuracy, delay patient management, and increase the risk of unnecessary imaging. This issue is particularly relevant in resource-limited healthcare settings where RRFs represent the primary communication tool between clinicians and radiology departments.
objectivesTo evaluate the completeness of RRF documentation at Bashair University Hospital and assess the impact of implementing a standardized form supported by targeted clinician education.
methodsA prospective closed-loop clinical audit was conducted over two cycles, with 50 RRFs reviewed in each phase. Cycle 1 was performed over two weeks in May 2025, followed by a one-month intervention that introduced a structured Royal College of Radiologists (RCR)-compliant request form and delivered educational sessions. Cycle 2 was conducted over a subsequent three-month period. Data were extracted using a predefined checklist and analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square testing.
resultsBaseline documentation was markedly deficient across several critical parameters, including patient address 0 (0.0%), urgency 0 (0.0%), clinical background 8 (16.0%), and the stated clinical question 3 (6.0%). Following the intervention, statistically significant improvements were observed in address documentation 47 (94.0%), p < 0.0001; urgency 47 (94.0%), p < 0.0001; clinical background 42 (84.0%), p < 0.0001; and diagnostic question 41 (82.0%), p < 0.0001. Recording the referring clinician's name also improved substantially from 9 (18.0%) to 47 (94.0%) (p < 0.0001). The patient's name was consistently documented at 50 (100.0%) in both cycles. Conversely, telephone contact information remained poorly documented (1, 2.0%, p = 1.000), and documentation of the requested imaging modality showed no statistically significant improvement (p = 0.5579).
conclusionThe implementation of a standardized RRF and focused educational intervention substantially improved documentation quality and compliance with RCR standards. These findings demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of low-cost interventions in optimizing communication, enhancing diagnostic safety, and reducing unnecessary imaging. Continued monitoring, reinforcement of contact information fields, and periodic re-audits are recommended to sustain improvements.
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.