HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Choksi, V. R. Articles by Carlos, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Choksi, V. R. Articles by Carlos, R. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Efficiency of a Semiautomated Coding and Review Process for Notification of Critical Findings in Diagnostic Imaging

¹ Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor VA Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
² Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Dr., B2 A209, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0030.

OBJECTIVE. When a significant unexpected finding such as malignancy is noted on a study, the standard of care generally holds that the radiologist communicate the findings to the referring physician and document the communication in the radiology report. Despite this standard, for a variety of reasons it remains possible that the direct care provider might receive such notification but not initiate an appropriate workup. On the basis of prior root cause analysis, we developed and instituted a semiautomated process for notification of critical diagnostic imaging findings. We now report our 12-month experience with the process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. A diagnostic code was attached to every radiology report. When a significant unexpected finding occurred, our radiologists, in addition to contacting the appropriate clinician, gave the report the designation code 8. On a weekly basis, a list of code 8 cases was passed to the cancer registrar at our institution, who tracked the cases to ensure that they were appropriately followed up.

RESULTS. In the 12-month period after initiation of this system, we performed 37,736 radiologic examinations at our institute. Of these, 395 cases were given code 8. All code 8 cases were followed up by the tumor registrar. In 35 cases, no workup was documented after 2 weeks. Of these, eight cases would have been completely lost to follow-up if this safety net had not been in place.

CONCLUSION. Failures of communication, documentation errors, and various system failures may lead to an untoward outcome for the patient. We devised a simple system to ensure that significant unexpected findings on imaging received appropriate attention. An additional level of redundancy has increased the probability of optimal patient outcome.

Keywords: communication of findings • practice of radiology • radiology reports • safety • semiautomated coding

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Singh, H. S. Arora, M. S. Vij, R. Rao, M. M. Khan, and L. A. Petersen Communication Outcomes of Critical Imaging Results in a Computerized Notification System J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 2007; 14(4): 459 - 466. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]