A neuroradiology e-mail service for a district general hospital in the COVID-19 era.

IF 1.1 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh Pub Date : 2025-03-20 DOI:10.1177/14782715251329141

Mary T McCullagh, Ferghal McVerry, Peter Flynn, Niall MacKenzie, Gillian Thompson, Mark O McCarron

{"title":"A neuroradiology e-mail service for a district general hospital in the COVID-19 era.","authors":"Mary T McCullagh, Ferghal McVerry, Peter Flynn, Niall MacKenzie, Gillian Thompson, Mark O McCarron","doi":"10.1177/14782715251329141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Hospital care for most neurological patients occurs in district general hospitals (DGHs). The COVID-19 pandemic displaced our DGH weekly neuroradiology meeting to an email service.Methods: Neuroradiological discrepancies among selected neurological patients were compared between face-to-face (f2f) meetings and an e-mail service.Results: Among 734 consecutively selected patients there was no statistically significant differences in outcomes - frequency of clinically unimportant discrepancies (10.3% e-mail vs 12.8% f2f, p = 0.300) or frequency of clinically important discrepancies (16.0% e-mail vs 15.6% f2f, p = 0.889). Among all imaged patients assessed by a neurologist, clinically important discrepancies were estimated to be 4.2% (95% CI: 3.5%-5.0%), with little annual variation (Chi-square for trend, p = 0.156).Conclusion: This study shows that DGH general radiology provides good quality reporting of neuroimaging, and neurologists provide a pivotal role in identifying patients who require neuroradiology second opinions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an e-mail service maintained neuroimaging quality assurance in a DGH.","PeriodicalId":46606,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh","volume":" ","pages":"14782715251329141"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715251329141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hospital care for most neurological patients occurs in district general hospitals (DGHs). The COVID-19 pandemic displaced our DGH weekly neuroradiology meeting to an email service.

Methods: Neuroradiological discrepancies among selected neurological patients were compared between face-to-face (f2f) meetings and an e-mail service.

Results: Among 734 consecutively selected patients there was no statistically significant differences in outcomes - frequency of clinically unimportant discrepancies (10.3% e-mail vs 12.8% f2f, p = 0.300) or frequency of clinically important discrepancies (16.0% e-mail vs 15.6% f2f, p = 0.889). Among all imaged patients assessed by a neurologist, clinically important discrepancies were estimated to be 4.2% (95% CI: 3.5%-5.0%), with little annual variation (Chi-square for trend, p = 0.156).

Conclusion: This study shows that DGH general radiology provides good quality reporting of neuroimaging, and neurologists provide a pivotal role in identifying patients who require neuroradiology second opinions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an e-mail service maintained neuroimaging quality assurance in a DGH.

查看原文本刊更多论文

新冠肺炎时代某地区综合医院神经放射学电子邮件服务。

背景：大多数神经系统患者的住院治疗发生在地区综合医院。COVID-19大流行将我们的DGH每周神经放射学会议改为电子邮件服务。方法：比较选定的神经学患者在面对面（f2f）会议和电子邮件服务之间的神经放射学差异。结果：在连续选择的734例患者中，临床不重要差异频次（10.3% e-mail vs 12.8% f2f, p = 0.300）和临床重要差异频次（16.0% e-mail vs 15.6% f2f, p = 0.889）的结果无统计学差异。在所有由神经科医生评估的影像学患者中，临床重要差异估计为4.2% (95% CI: 3.5%-5.0%)，年度变化很小（趋势卡方，p = 0.156）。结论：本研究表明，DGH普通放射学提供了高质量的神经影像学报告，神经内科医生在识别需要神经放射学第二意见的患者方面发挥了关键作用。在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间，电子邮件服务维持了DGH的神经成像质量保证。

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

Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-

CiteScore

1.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

20 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (JRCPE) is the College’s quarterly, peer-reviewed journal, with an international circulation of 8,000. It has three main emphases – clinical medicine, education and medical history. The online JRCPE provides full access to the contents of the print journal and has a number of additional features including advance online publication of recently accepted papers, an online archive, online-only papers, online symposia abstracts, and a series of topic-specific supplements, primarily based on the College’s consensus conferences.