The current quality criteria of MRI reports distributed to healthcare stakeholders in Jordan

IF 1.2 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Mohammad Ayasrah
{"title":"The current quality criteria of MRI reports distributed to healthcare stakeholders in Jordan","authors":"Mohammad Ayasrah","doi":"10.1108/ijhrh-06-2021-0132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nMany international radiology societies, including American College of Radiologists (ACR), have established guidelines for optimum forms and contents of medical imaging reports to ensure high quality and to guarantee the satisfaction of both the referring physician and the patient. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the criteria of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports in Jordan according to the standards of the ACR.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis cross-sectional study was conducted in early January 2021 for two weeks. An invitation letter was sent to 85 MRI centers of various health-care sectors in Jordan to participate in the study. Each invitee was requested to send at least ten different MRI reports. The study used a questionnaire containing the checklist of the latest edition 2020 of ACR’s practice parameter to communicate the diagnostic imaging results and the demographic information of the participating MRI centers. Seven basic elements were assessed for content-related quality of MRI reports, which are administrative data, patient demographics, clinical history, imaging procedures, clinical symptoms, imaging observations and impressions. Statistical analyses were used to evaluate the data.\n\n\nFindings\nForty-one MRI centers participated in the study with 386 different MRI exam reports. The majority (92%) of the reports were computer-generated. Free texted unstructured reports and head-structured reports had an almost equal percentage of around 40%. Exam and radiologist demography as well as exam findings criteria were 100% available in all reports. The percentage of exam conclusion, and exam description and techniques were 2% and 4.9%, respectively (N = 368). There was a positive association between computer-generated reports and the presence of picture archiving and communication systems (PACS)/health information systems r = 0.443.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nStructured and free text unstructured reporting were the common types of MRI exam reports in Jordan. Handwriting exam reporting existed in few MRI centers, particularly in those that had no PACS and radiology information systems.\n","PeriodicalId":14129,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhrh-06-2021-0132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Many international radiology societies, including American College of Radiologists (ACR), have established guidelines for optimum forms and contents of medical imaging reports to ensure high quality and to guarantee the satisfaction of both the referring physician and the patient. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the criteria of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports in Jordan according to the standards of the ACR. Design/methodology/approach This cross-sectional study was conducted in early January 2021 for two weeks. An invitation letter was sent to 85 MRI centers of various health-care sectors in Jordan to participate in the study. Each invitee was requested to send at least ten different MRI reports. The study used a questionnaire containing the checklist of the latest edition 2020 of ACR’s practice parameter to communicate the diagnostic imaging results and the demographic information of the participating MRI centers. Seven basic elements were assessed for content-related quality of MRI reports, which are administrative data, patient demographics, clinical history, imaging procedures, clinical symptoms, imaging observations and impressions. Statistical analyses were used to evaluate the data. Findings Forty-one MRI centers participated in the study with 386 different MRI exam reports. The majority (92%) of the reports were computer-generated. Free texted unstructured reports and head-structured reports had an almost equal percentage of around 40%. Exam and radiologist demography as well as exam findings criteria were 100% available in all reports. The percentage of exam conclusion, and exam description and techniques were 2% and 4.9%, respectively (N = 368). There was a positive association between computer-generated reports and the presence of picture archiving and communication systems (PACS)/health information systems r = 0.443. Originality/value Structured and free text unstructured reporting were the common types of MRI exam reports in Jordan. Handwriting exam reporting existed in few MRI centers, particularly in those that had no PACS and radiology information systems.
分发给约旦医疗保健利益相关者的MRI报告的当前质量标准
目的包括美国放射学会(ACR)在内的许多国际放射学会都制定了医学影像报告的最佳形式和内容指南,以确保高质量,并保证转诊医生和患者的满意度。因此,本研究旨在根据ACR.设计/方法/方法的标准分析约旦磁共振成像(MRI)报告的标准。本横断面研究于2021年1月初进行,为期两周。向约旦各医疗保健部门的85个MRI中心发出了参与这项研究的邀请函。每位受邀者被要求发送至少十份不同的MRI报告。该研究使用了一份包含2020年ACR实践参数最新版本清单的问卷,以传达参与MRI中心的诊断成像结果和人口统计信息。评估了MRI报告内容相关质量的七个基本要素,即管理数据、患者人口统计、临床病史、成像程序、临床症状、成像观察和印象。统计分析用于评估数据。发现41个MRI中心参与了这项研究,共有386份不同的MRI检查报告。大多数(92%)报告是计算机生成的。自由文本非结构化报告和头部结构化报告的比例几乎相等,约为40%。在所有报告中,检查和放射科医生的人口学以及检查结果标准都是100%可用的。检查结论、检查描述和技术的百分比分别为2%和4.9%(N=368)。计算机生成的报告与图片存档和通信系统(PACS)/健康信息系统的存在之间存在正相关= 0.443.Originality/value结构化和自由文本非结构化报告是约旦MRI检查报告的常见类型。手写检查报告存在于少数MRI中心,尤其是那些没有PACS和放射学信息系统的中心。
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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: nternational Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare (IJHRH) is an international, peer reviewed journal with a unique practical approach to promoting race equality, inclusion and human rights in health and social care. The journal publishes scholarly and double blind peer-reviewed papers of the highest standard, including case studies and book reviews. IJHRH aims include: -To explore what is currently known about discrimination and disadvantage with a particular focus on health and social care -Push the barriers of the human rights discourse by identifying new avenues for healthcare practice and policy internationally -Create bridges between policymakers, practitioners and researchers -Identify and understand the social determinants of health equity and practical interventions to overcome barriers at national and international levels. The journal welcomes papers which use varied approaches, including discussion of theory, comparative studies, systematic evaluation of interventions, analysis of qualitative data and study of health and social care institutions and the political process. Papers published in IJHRH: -Clearly demonstrate the implications of the research -Provide evidence-rich information -Provoke reflection and support critical analysis of both challenges and strengths -Share examples of best practice and ‘what works’, including user perspectives IJHRH is a hugely valuable source of information for researchers, academics, students, practitioners, managers, policy-makers, commissioning bodies, social workers, psychologists, nurses, voluntary sector workers, service users and carers internationally.
×
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