Classification and communication of critical findings in emergency radiology: a scoping review.

Lucas Corallo, D Blair Macdonald, Fatma Eldehimi, Anirudh Venugopalan Nair, Simeon Mitchell
{"title":"Classification and communication of critical findings in emergency radiology: a scoping review.","authors":"Lucas Corallo, D Blair Macdonald, Fatma Eldehimi, Anirudh Venugopalan Nair, Simeon Mitchell","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To identify the published standards for the classification and communication of critical actionable findings in emergency radiology, and the associated facilitators and barriers to communication and message management/dissemination of such findings.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Search terms for resources pertaining to critical findings (CFs) in emergency radiology were applied to 2 databases (PubMed, Embase). Screening of hits using the following pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria were performed by 3 analysts with subsequent consensus discussion for discrepancies: 1) The resources include any standards for the classification and/or communication of imaging findings as critical OR 2) The resource discusses any facilitators to the communication of CFs OR 3) The resource discusses any barriers to the communication of CFs. Resources with explicit focus on a pediatric population or predominant focus on artificial intelligence/natural language processing were omitted. Accompanying gray literature search was used to expand included resources. Data extraction included: year, country, resource type, scope/purpose, participants, context, standards to identifying/communicating CFs, facilitators/barriers, method type, recommendations, applicability, and disclosures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-six resources were included in the final analysis, including 16 societal/commission guidelines. Among the guidelines, no standardized list of CFs was identified, with typical recommendations suggesting application of a local policy. Communication standards included direct closed-loop communication for high acuity findings, with more flexible communication channels for less acute findings. Applied interventions for CFs management, most frequently fell into 4 categories: electronic (n=10), hybrid i.e., electronic/administrative (n = 3), feedback/education (n=5), and administrative (n=4).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are published standards, policies and interventions for the management of CFs in emergency radiology. 3-tier stratification (e.g. critical/urgent/incidental) based on time-sensitivity and severity is most common with most critical findings necessitating closed-loop communication. Awareness of systemic facilitators and barriers should inform local policy development. Electronic and administrative communication pathways are useful adjuncts. Further research should offer comparative analyses of different CF interventions with regards to cost-effectiveness, notification time, and user feedback.</p>","PeriodicalId":73968,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2024.09.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To identify the published standards for the classification and communication of critical actionable findings in emergency radiology, and the associated facilitators and barriers to communication and message management/dissemination of such findings.

Materials and methods: Search terms for resources pertaining to critical findings (CFs) in emergency radiology were applied to 2 databases (PubMed, Embase). Screening of hits using the following pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria were performed by 3 analysts with subsequent consensus discussion for discrepancies: 1) The resources include any standards for the classification and/or communication of imaging findings as critical OR 2) The resource discusses any facilitators to the communication of CFs OR 3) The resource discusses any barriers to the communication of CFs. Resources with explicit focus on a pediatric population or predominant focus on artificial intelligence/natural language processing were omitted. Accompanying gray literature search was used to expand included resources. Data extraction included: year, country, resource type, scope/purpose, participants, context, standards to identifying/communicating CFs, facilitators/barriers, method type, recommendations, applicability, and disclosures.

Results: Seventy-six resources were included in the final analysis, including 16 societal/commission guidelines. Among the guidelines, no standardized list of CFs was identified, with typical recommendations suggesting application of a local policy. Communication standards included direct closed-loop communication for high acuity findings, with more flexible communication channels for less acute findings. Applied interventions for CFs management, most frequently fell into 4 categories: electronic (n=10), hybrid i.e., electronic/administrative (n = 3), feedback/education (n=5), and administrative (n=4).

Conclusion: There are published standards, policies and interventions for the management of CFs in emergency radiology. 3-tier stratification (e.g. critical/urgent/incidental) based on time-sensitivity and severity is most common with most critical findings necessitating closed-loop communication. Awareness of systemic facilitators and barriers should inform local policy development. Electronic and administrative communication pathways are useful adjuncts. Further research should offer comparative analyses of different CF interventions with regards to cost-effectiveness, notification time, and user feedback.

急诊放射学重要发现的分类和交流:范围界定综述。
目的:确定已公布的急诊放射学关键可操作结果的分类和交流标准,以及交流和信息管理/传播此类结果的相关促进因素和障碍:在 2 个数据库(PubMed、Embase)中搜索与急诊放射学重要发现(CFs)相关的资源。由 3 位分析师使用以下预先确定的纳入和排除标准对点击率进行筛选,随后就差异进行一致讨论:1)资料中包含任何关于危重成像结果分类和/或交流的标准;或 2)资料中讨论了任何关于危重成像结果交流的促进因素;或 3)资料中讨论了任何关于危重成像结果交流的障碍。明确关注儿科人群或主要关注人工智能/自然语言处理的资源被忽略。同时还使用了灰色文献检索来扩展所包含的资源。数据提取包括:年份、国家、资源类型、范围/目的、参与者、背景、识别/交流 CF 的标准、促进因素/障碍、方法类型、建议、适用性和披露:最终分析包括 76 项资源,其中包括 16 项社会/委员会指南。在这些指南中,没有发现标准化的 CF 列表,典型的建议是采用当地政策。沟通标准包括针对高危急性检查结果的直接闭环沟通,以及针对非急症检查结果的更为灵活的沟通渠道。应用于CFs管理的干预措施最常见的分为4类:电子(10人)、电子/行政混合(3人)、反馈/教育(5人)和行政(4人):结论:急诊放射科有已公布的 CFs 管理标准、政策和干预措施。基于时间敏感性和严重程度的三级分层(如危重/急诊/意外)最为常见,大多数危重结果需要闭环沟通。对系统促进因素和障碍的认识应为地方政策的制定提供依据。电子和行政沟通途径是有用的辅助手段。进一步的研究应从成本效益、通知时间和用户反馈等方面对不同的 CF 干预措施进行比较分析。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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