Determination and communication of critical findings in neuroradiology

Stacey A. Trotter, Lukasz S. Babiarz, Valentina G. Viertel, Paul G Nagy, Jonathan S. Lewin, David Mark Yousem

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: The aims of this study were to analyze reporting of critical findings among neuroradiologists in a university setting and to revise a list of critical findings reflecting an academic clinical practice as part of a practice quality improvement project. Materials and Methods: Neuroradiologic studies performed between January 1 and February 28, 2011, containing "critical finding" notations were searched. Reports were matched with an institutionally approved list of critical findings. These findings and unlisted items that were labeled critical were analyzed for frequency, clinical severity, and diagnosis category. The list was revised on the basis of frequency and severity results. Results: A total of 12,607 reports contained 871 critical findings, 608 of which (69.8%) matched the preexisting list. One-third of the findings (263 of 871) labeled critical were not found on the list. Facial, spinal, and calvarial fractures (76 of 263 [28.9%]) and neurovascular injuries (38 of 263 [14.4%]) were the most frequent unlisted findings. A revised list encompassed 86.7% of all communicated neuroradiologic critical findings. Conclusions: Clinician-approved and neuroradiologist-approved standardized sets of critical findings can facilitate the communication of important results without "overcalling" and decreasing efficiency. Physician judgment of what constitutes a critical finding supersedes any such list, as clinical scenarios are highly variable from patient to patient. Critical findings lists require intermittent revision to reflect practice patterns and changing incidence of disease. Such a review can constitute a practice quality improvement initiative.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)45-50
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American College of Radiology
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Quality Improvement
Communication
Spinal Fractures
Physicians
Incidence
Wounds and Injuries

Keywords

  • communication
  • Neuroradiologic critical findings
  • patient safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Determination and communication of critical findings in neuroradiology. / Trotter, Stacey A.; Babiarz, Lukasz S.; Viertel, Valentina G.; Nagy, Paul G; Lewin, Jonathan S.; Yousem, David Mark.

In: Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2013, p. 45-50.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Trotter, Stacey A. ; Babiarz, Lukasz S. ; Viertel, Valentina G. ; Nagy, Paul G ; Lewin, Jonathan S. ; Yousem, David Mark. / Determination and communication of critical findings in neuroradiology. In: Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2013 ; Vol. 10, No. 1. pp. 45-50.
@article{fabb6183f1654370b2b7826e531c770d,
title = "Determination and communication of critical findings in neuroradiology",
abstract = "Purpose: The aims of this study were to analyze reporting of critical findings among neuroradiologists in a university setting and to revise a list of critical findings reflecting an academic clinical practice as part of a practice quality improvement project. Materials and Methods: Neuroradiologic studies performed between January 1 and February 28, 2011, containing {"}critical finding{"} notations were searched. Reports were matched with an institutionally approved list of critical findings. These findings and unlisted items that were labeled critical were analyzed for frequency, clinical severity, and diagnosis category. The list was revised on the basis of frequency and severity results. Results: A total of 12,607 reports contained 871 critical findings, 608 of which (69.8{\%}) matched the preexisting list. One-third of the findings (263 of 871) labeled critical were not found on the list. Facial, spinal, and calvarial fractures (76 of 263 [28.9{\%}]) and neurovascular injuries (38 of 263 [14.4{\%}]) were the most frequent unlisted findings. A revised list encompassed 86.7{\%} of all communicated neuroradiologic critical findings. Conclusions: Clinician-approved and neuroradiologist-approved standardized sets of critical findings can facilitate the communication of important results without {"}overcalling{"} and decreasing efficiency. Physician judgment of what constitutes a critical finding supersedes any such list, as clinical scenarios are highly variable from patient to patient. Critical findings lists require intermittent revision to reflect practice patterns and changing incidence of disease. Such a review can constitute a practice quality improvement initiative.",
keywords = "communication, Neuroradiologic critical findings, patient safety",
author = "Trotter, {Stacey A.} and Babiarz, {Lukasz S.} and Viertel, {Valentina G.} and Nagy, {Paul G} and Lewin, {Jonathan S.} and Yousem, {David Mark}",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacr.2012.07.012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "45--50",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Radiology",
issn = "1558-349X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Determination and communication of critical findings in neuroradiology

AU - Trotter, Stacey A.

AU - Babiarz, Lukasz S.

AU - Viertel, Valentina G.

AU - Nagy, Paul G

AU - Lewin, Jonathan S.

AU - Yousem, David Mark

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Purpose: The aims of this study were to analyze reporting of critical findings among neuroradiologists in a university setting and to revise a list of critical findings reflecting an academic clinical practice as part of a practice quality improvement project. Materials and Methods: Neuroradiologic studies performed between January 1 and February 28, 2011, containing "critical finding" notations were searched. Reports were matched with an institutionally approved list of critical findings. These findings and unlisted items that were labeled critical were analyzed for frequency, clinical severity, and diagnosis category. The list was revised on the basis of frequency and severity results. Results: A total of 12,607 reports contained 871 critical findings, 608 of which (69.8%) matched the preexisting list. One-third of the findings (263 of 871) labeled critical were not found on the list. Facial, spinal, and calvarial fractures (76 of 263 [28.9%]) and neurovascular injuries (38 of 263 [14.4%]) were the most frequent unlisted findings. A revised list encompassed 86.7% of all communicated neuroradiologic critical findings. Conclusions: Clinician-approved and neuroradiologist-approved standardized sets of critical findings can facilitate the communication of important results without "overcalling" and decreasing efficiency. Physician judgment of what constitutes a critical finding supersedes any such list, as clinical scenarios are highly variable from patient to patient. Critical findings lists require intermittent revision to reflect practice patterns and changing incidence of disease. Such a review can constitute a practice quality improvement initiative.

AB - Purpose: The aims of this study were to analyze reporting of critical findings among neuroradiologists in a university setting and to revise a list of critical findings reflecting an academic clinical practice as part of a practice quality improvement project. Materials and Methods: Neuroradiologic studies performed between January 1 and February 28, 2011, containing "critical finding" notations were searched. Reports were matched with an institutionally approved list of critical findings. These findings and unlisted items that were labeled critical were analyzed for frequency, clinical severity, and diagnosis category. The list was revised on the basis of frequency and severity results. Results: A total of 12,607 reports contained 871 critical findings, 608 of which (69.8%) matched the preexisting list. One-third of the findings (263 of 871) labeled critical were not found on the list. Facial, spinal, and calvarial fractures (76 of 263 [28.9%]) and neurovascular injuries (38 of 263 [14.4%]) were the most frequent unlisted findings. A revised list encompassed 86.7% of all communicated neuroradiologic critical findings. Conclusions: Clinician-approved and neuroradiologist-approved standardized sets of critical findings can facilitate the communication of important results without "overcalling" and decreasing efficiency. Physician judgment of what constitutes a critical finding supersedes any such list, as clinical scenarios are highly variable from patient to patient. Critical findings lists require intermittent revision to reflect practice patterns and changing incidence of disease. Such a review can constitute a practice quality improvement initiative.

KW - communication

KW - Neuroradiologic critical findings

KW - patient safety

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928096514&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928096514&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2012.07.012

DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2012.07.012

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 45

EP - 50

JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology

SN - 1558-349X

IS - 1

ER -