Adequacy of completion of radiology request forms at St. Francis’ Hospital of Katete District: A clinical audit in Zambia

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Mubanga Bwalya, Osward Bwanga, John. Y. Mvula, Foster Munsanje, Bretina Muntanga
{"title":"Adequacy of completion of radiology request forms at St. Francis’ Hospital of Katete District: A clinical audit in Zambia","authors":"Mubanga Bwalya, Osward Bwanga, John. Y. Mvula, Foster Munsanje, Bretina Muntanga","doi":"10.4314/mmj.v35i2.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundMost imaging examinations use ionising radiation which causes biological effects on the body. For this reason, only justified examinations should be requested by adequately completing the radiology request form (RRF) by clinicians. The RRF allows radiographers and radiologists to assess if the benefit outweighs the risk associated with medical radiation exposure. Inadequately or incorrectly filled RRFs leads to unnecessary radiation exposures, imaging errors, and delays in performing the examination. Therefore, this study aimed at auditing the adequacy of completion of general RRFs at St. Francis’ Hospital of Katete District in Zambia.MethodsThis was a quantitative study in which RRFs for general radiography from January to December 2020 were audited. Data were collected retrospectively using a checklist from a total of 974 RRFs. The filled-in forms were assessed for completeness of information related to the patient, examination, and referring clinician. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. The standard of completeness was based on the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) guidelines requiring all the designated variables completed on the RRF.ResultsMost N=881(90.5%), RRFs were incompletely filled. With regards to patient’s identification, the findings revealed N=4(0.5%), N=597(61.3%), N=3(0.4%), and N=2(0.3%) RRFs devoid of patient’s name, hospital number, age, and gender, respectively. Regarding the examination, the findings revealed N=3(0.4%), N=68(7%), N=449(46.2%), and N=336 (37%) RRFs devoid of requested examination, indication, clinical history, and level of urgency, respectively. Regarding the referrer, the findings revealed N=135(13.9%), N=173(17.8 %), N=472(48.5%), and N=31(3.2%) RRFs were devoid of information relating to the ward, clinicians’ name, referring department, and signature, respectively.Conclusion This audit reports that most of the RRFs were incompletely filled-in at St. Francis’ Hospital. Furthermore, the hospital number, clinical history and level of urgency were the frequently unfilled variables. Overall, there were gaps in completion of RRFs requiring remedying.","PeriodicalId":18185,"journal":{"name":"Malawi Medical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Malawi Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/mmj.v35i2.7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundMost imaging examinations use ionising radiation which causes biological effects on the body. For this reason, only justified examinations should be requested by adequately completing the radiology request form (RRF) by clinicians. The RRF allows radiographers and radiologists to assess if the benefit outweighs the risk associated with medical radiation exposure. Inadequately or incorrectly filled RRFs leads to unnecessary radiation exposures, imaging errors, and delays in performing the examination. Therefore, this study aimed at auditing the adequacy of completion of general RRFs at St. Francis’ Hospital of Katete District in Zambia.MethodsThis was a quantitative study in which RRFs for general radiography from January to December 2020 were audited. Data were collected retrospectively using a checklist from a total of 974 RRFs. The filled-in forms were assessed for completeness of information related to the patient, examination, and referring clinician. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. The standard of completeness was based on the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) guidelines requiring all the designated variables completed on the RRF.ResultsMost N=881(90.5%), RRFs were incompletely filled. With regards to patient’s identification, the findings revealed N=4(0.5%), N=597(61.3%), N=3(0.4%), and N=2(0.3%) RRFs devoid of patient’s name, hospital number, age, and gender, respectively. Regarding the examination, the findings revealed N=3(0.4%), N=68(7%), N=449(46.2%), and N=336 (37%) RRFs devoid of requested examination, indication, clinical history, and level of urgency, respectively. Regarding the referrer, the findings revealed N=135(13.9%), N=173(17.8 %), N=472(48.5%), and N=31(3.2%) RRFs were devoid of information relating to the ward, clinicians’ name, referring department, and signature, respectively.Conclusion This audit reports that most of the RRFs were incompletely filled-in at St. Francis’ Hospital. Furthermore, the hospital number, clinical history and level of urgency were the frequently unfilled variables. Overall, there were gaps in completion of RRFs requiring remedying.
圣弗朗西斯医院凯特区放射申请表的充分填写:赞比亚的临床审计
背景:大多数成像检查使用电离辐射,这会对人体产生生物效应。出于这个原因,只有合理的检查应要求充分填写放射科申请表(RRF)由临床医生。RRF允许放射技师和放射科医生评估与医疗辐射照射相关的益处是否超过风险。不充分或不正确填充的rrf会导致不必要的辐射暴露、成像错误和检查延迟。因此,本研究的目的是审计赞比亚凯特区圣弗朗西斯医院完成一般rrf的情况是否充分。方法本研究是一项定量研究,对2020年1月至12月普通x线摄影的rrf进行审计。使用清单从974个RRFs中回顾性收集数据。对填写的表格进行评估,以确定与患者、检查和转诊临床医生相关的信息是否完整。数据分析采用描述性统计。完整性的标准是基于皇家放射学院(RCR)的指导方针,要求在RRF上完成所有指定的变量。结果N=881例(90.5%)患者RRFs填写不全。在患者识别方面,分别有N=4(0.5%)、N=597(61.3%)、N=3(0.4%)和N=2(0.3%)的RRFs没有患者姓名、医院编号、年龄和性别。关于检查结果,分别有N=3(0.4%)、N=68(7%)、N=449(46.2%)和N=336(37%)例RRFs没有要求的检查、适应证、临床病史和紧急程度。关于转诊者,结果显示N=135(13.9%)、N=173(17.8%)、N=472(48.5%)和N=31(3.2%)的rrf分别缺乏与病房、临床医生姓名、转诊部门和签名相关的信息。结论本次审计报告称,圣弗朗西斯医院的大部分rrf未完全填写。此外,医院数量、临床病史和紧急程度是经常未填写的变量。总的来说,在完成区域储备金方面存在需要补救的差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Malawi Medical Journal
Malawi Medical Journal Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Driven and guided by the priorities articulated in the Malawi National Health Research Agenda, the Malawi Medical Journal publishes original research, short reports, case reports, viewpoints, insightful editorials and commentaries that are of high quality, informative and applicable to the Malawian and sub-Saharan Africa regions. Our particular interest is to publish evidence-based research that impacts and informs national health policies and medical practice in Malawi and the broader region. Topics covered in the journal include, but are not limited to: - Communicable diseases (HIV and AIDS, Malaria, TB, etc.) - Non-communicable diseases (Cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes, etc.) - Sexual and Reproductive Health (Adolescent health, education, pregnancy and abortion, STDs and HIV and AIDS, etc.) - Mental health - Environmental health - Nutrition - Health systems and health policy (Leadership, ethics, and governance) - Community systems strengthening research - Injury, trauma, and surgical disorders
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信