Luhe Yang, David Leswick, Michael Butler, Tasha Ellchuk
{"title":"在有和没有放射科医生监督的情况下对改良钡吞咽研究的评价:一项前后观察研究。","authors":"Luhe Yang, David Leswick, Michael Butler, Tasha Ellchuk","doi":"10.1177/08465371211020630","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Assess quality metrics of modified barium swallow studies (MBSS) with and without a radiologist present during the procedure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective review of MBSS performed on adult inpatients at a tertiary care hospital 6-months pre- and post-institutional change from having to not having a radiologist present during the examination.</p><p><strong>Factors assessed included: </strong>fluoroscopy time; study duration; number of cine loops; number of images; efficiency of collimation (using a 5-point scoring system); time to final report; radiologist-speech language pathologist report disagreement; and recalls for inadequate studies. Statistical analysis was via Welch's t-test and a test of proportions for continuous and count data under the normal approximation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>106 and 119 MBSS were analyzed from the radiologist present and radiologist absent periods, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found for: average fluoroscopy time (116.1 s vs. 126.9 s; <i>P</i> = 0.161); study duration (400.4 s vs. 417.3 s; <i>P</i> = 0.453); number of cine loops (9.3 vs. 10.2; <i>P</i> = 0.075); number of images (620.5 vs. 581.1; <i>P</i> = 0.350); or report disagreement. There was improved performance without the radiologist present for collimation (1.92 vs. 1.43; <i>P</i> = 0.003) and fewer non-diagnostic images (6.5 vs. 4.5; <i>P</i> = 0.001). Time to final report was longer with the radiologist absent due to more reports with significant delays. There were no repeated studies because of inadequate technique in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MBSS performed by technologists without radiologist supervision is not inferior to those performed with radiologist supervision on multiple performance measures. This supports technologist operated MBSS without radiologist supervision, while acknowledging a need to further address radiologist report time delay.</p>","PeriodicalId":444006,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes","volume":" ","pages":"84-89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08465371211020630","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Modified Barium Swallow Study Conducted With and Without Radiologist Supervision: A Pre- and Post-Observational Study.\",\"authors\":\"Luhe Yang, David Leswick, Michael Butler, Tasha Ellchuk\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08465371211020630\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Assess quality metrics of modified barium swallow studies (MBSS) with and without a radiologist present during the procedure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective review of MBSS performed on adult inpatients at a tertiary care hospital 6-months pre- and post-institutional change from having to not having a radiologist present during the examination.</p><p><strong>Factors assessed included: </strong>fluoroscopy time; study duration; number of cine loops; number of images; efficiency of collimation (using a 5-point scoring system); time to final report; radiologist-speech language pathologist report disagreement; and recalls for inadequate studies. Statistical analysis was via Welch's t-test and a test of proportions for continuous and count data under the normal approximation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>106 and 119 MBSS were analyzed from the radiologist present and radiologist absent periods, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found for: average fluoroscopy time (116.1 s vs. 126.9 s; <i>P</i> = 0.161); study duration (400.4 s vs. 417.3 s; <i>P</i> = 0.453); number of cine loops (9.3 vs. 10.2; <i>P</i> = 0.075); number of images (620.5 vs. 581.1; <i>P</i> = 0.350); or report disagreement. There was improved performance without the radiologist present for collimation (1.92 vs. 1.43; <i>P</i> = 0.003) and fewer non-diagnostic images (6.5 vs. 4.5; <i>P</i> = 0.001). Time to final report was longer with the radiologist absent due to more reports with significant delays. There were no repeated studies because of inadequate technique in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MBSS performed by technologists without radiologist supervision is not inferior to those performed with radiologist supervision on multiple performance measures. This supports technologist operated MBSS without radiologist supervision, while acknowledging a need to further address radiologist report time delay.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":444006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"84-89\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08465371211020630\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08465371211020630\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/6/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08465371211020630","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/6/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:评估在手术过程中有无放射科医生在场的改良钡吞咽研究(MBSS)的质量指标。方法:回顾性回顾对三级医院成年住院患者进行MBSS检查的6个月前后,从检查期间有放射科医生在场到没有放射科医生在场。评估的因素包括:透视时间;研究持续时间;电影循环次数;图像数量;准直效率(采用5分计分系统);最后报告时间;放射科医生-语言病理学家报告不一致;并因研究不足而召回。统计分析采用Welch’st检验和正态近似下连续和计数数据的比例检验。结果:分别对106例和119例放射科医生在场和缺席期间的MBSS进行了分析。平均透视时间(116.1 s vs 126.9 s);P = 0.161);研究持续时间(400.4 s vs. 417.3 s;P = 0.453);电影循环次数(9.3 vs. 10.2;P = 0.075);图像数量(620.5 vs. 581.1;P = 0.350);或者报告不同意见。在没有放射科医生在场的情况下,患者的准直性能有所提高(1.92 vs 1.43;P = 0.003)和较少的非诊断图像(6.5 vs. 4.5;P = 0.001)。由于报告延误严重,放射科医生缺席,最终报告的时间更长。由于两组技术不完善,均无重复研究。结论:无放射科医师监督下技师实施的MBSS在多项绩效指标上并不逊于有放射科医师监督的技师。这支持技术人员在没有放射科医生监督的情况下操作MBSS,同时承认需要进一步解决放射科医生报告时间延迟的问题。
Evaluation of the Modified Barium Swallow Study Conducted With and Without Radiologist Supervision: A Pre- and Post-Observational Study.
Purpose: Assess quality metrics of modified barium swallow studies (MBSS) with and without a radiologist present during the procedure.
Methods: Retrospective review of MBSS performed on adult inpatients at a tertiary care hospital 6-months pre- and post-institutional change from having to not having a radiologist present during the examination.
Factors assessed included: fluoroscopy time; study duration; number of cine loops; number of images; efficiency of collimation (using a 5-point scoring system); time to final report; radiologist-speech language pathologist report disagreement; and recalls for inadequate studies. Statistical analysis was via Welch's t-test and a test of proportions for continuous and count data under the normal approximation.
Results: 106 and 119 MBSS were analyzed from the radiologist present and radiologist absent periods, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found for: average fluoroscopy time (116.1 s vs. 126.9 s; P = 0.161); study duration (400.4 s vs. 417.3 s; P = 0.453); number of cine loops (9.3 vs. 10.2; P = 0.075); number of images (620.5 vs. 581.1; P = 0.350); or report disagreement. There was improved performance without the radiologist present for collimation (1.92 vs. 1.43; P = 0.003) and fewer non-diagnostic images (6.5 vs. 4.5; P = 0.001). Time to final report was longer with the radiologist absent due to more reports with significant delays. There were no repeated studies because of inadequate technique in either group.
Conclusion: MBSS performed by technologists without radiologist supervision is not inferior to those performed with radiologist supervision on multiple performance measures. This supports technologist operated MBSS without radiologist supervision, while acknowledging a need to further address radiologist report time delay.