E. Robinson, Olukumni Ijeruh, W. Wonodi, Rufus Abam
{"title":"放射学实践中的临床治理:利用放射学申请表考虑患者临床信息,评估放射学调查的适当性","authors":"E. Robinson, Olukumni Ijeruh, W. Wonodi, Rufus Abam","doi":"10.4103/bmrj.bmrj_19_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Clinical governance in radiology is an improved quality assurance program where the patient well-being is the central focus concerning radiologic service using the radiology request form (RRF). Methodology: The study was a 6-month descriptive study conducted from January 2020 to June 2020. A total of 2053 request forms were collated retrospectively and evaluated to ascertain the appropriateness of the clinical information with the investigation requested. A 3 stage Likert scale of appropriate somewhat appropriate and inappropriate was used and the data analyzed using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) IBM Corp. version 23.0 (Armonk, NY: USA). The results were expressed in percentages and frequencies and presented in tables and charts. Results: Of the 2053 request forms, X-rays constitute 32.54% while ultrasound scans and computed tomography (CT) investigations constitute 43.21% and 5.46%, respectively. Clinical information was indicated in 51.39% of the RRF, out of which 75.95% of the clinical information were adequate while 13.93% were not in keeping with the investigation. Ultrasound scan request had the highest inappropriate clinical information (54.68%) followed by plain radiography request (41.73%) whereas all the CT request was in tandem with the investigation. Conclusion: There are occasional clinical information and radiologic request mismatch. This may be due to the filling of the RRF by medical interns or nonmedical personnel such as allied health workers with less knowledge on radiologic imaging modalities. The audit recommends proper supervision of young clinicians and continues medical education concerning the rational use of imaging modality.","PeriodicalId":34293,"journal":{"name":"Biomedical Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical governance in radiologic practice: Evaluating the appropriateness of radiologic investigation considering patient clinical information using the radiology request form\",\"authors\":\"E. Robinson, Olukumni Ijeruh, W. Wonodi, Rufus Abam\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/bmrj.bmrj_19_20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Clinical governance in radiology is an improved quality assurance program where the patient well-being is the central focus concerning radiologic service using the radiology request form (RRF). Methodology: The study was a 6-month descriptive study conducted from January 2020 to June 2020. A total of 2053 request forms were collated retrospectively and evaluated to ascertain the appropriateness of the clinical information with the investigation requested. A 3 stage Likert scale of appropriate somewhat appropriate and inappropriate was used and the data analyzed using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) IBM Corp. version 23.0 (Armonk, NY: USA). The results were expressed in percentages and frequencies and presented in tables and charts. Results: Of the 2053 request forms, X-rays constitute 32.54% while ultrasound scans and computed tomography (CT) investigations constitute 43.21% and 5.46%, respectively. Clinical information was indicated in 51.39% of the RRF, out of which 75.95% of the clinical information were adequate while 13.93% were not in keeping with the investigation. Ultrasound scan request had the highest inappropriate clinical information (54.68%) followed by plain radiography request (41.73%) whereas all the CT request was in tandem with the investigation. Conclusion: There are occasional clinical information and radiologic request mismatch. This may be due to the filling of the RRF by medical interns or nonmedical personnel such as allied health workers with less knowledge on radiologic imaging modalities. The audit recommends proper supervision of young clinicians and continues medical education concerning the rational use of imaging modality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomedical Research Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomedical Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/bmrj.bmrj_19_20\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedical Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/bmrj.bmrj_19_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
简介:放射学的临床管理是一个改进的质量保证计划,其中患者的福祉是使用放射学申请表(RRF)的放射服务的中心焦点。方法:该研究是一项为期6个月的描述性研究,于2020年1月至2020年6月进行。回顾性整理和评估共2053份申请表,以确定临床信息与所要求的调查的适当性。使用适当和不适当的3阶段李克特量表,并使用社会科学统计软件包(SPSS) IBM Corp. version 23.0 (Armonk, NY: USA)对数据进行分析。结果以百分比和频率表示,并以表格和图表形式呈现。结果:2053份申请单中,x线占32.54%,超声和CT检查分别占43.21%和5.46%。51.39%的RRF有临床信息,其中75.95%的临床信息是充分的,13.93%的临床信息与调查不一致。超声扫描请求中临床信息不恰当的比例最高(54.68%),其次是x线平片请求(41.73%),而所有CT请求均与调查一致。结论:偶有临床资料与影像学要求不匹配的情况。这可能是由于填补RRF的是医疗实习生或非医疗人员,如对放射成像模式了解较少的专职卫生工作者。审计建议对年轻临床医生进行适当监督,并继续进行有关合理使用成像方式的医学教育。
Clinical governance in radiologic practice: Evaluating the appropriateness of radiologic investigation considering patient clinical information using the radiology request form
Introduction: Clinical governance in radiology is an improved quality assurance program where the patient well-being is the central focus concerning radiologic service using the radiology request form (RRF). Methodology: The study was a 6-month descriptive study conducted from January 2020 to June 2020. A total of 2053 request forms were collated retrospectively and evaluated to ascertain the appropriateness of the clinical information with the investigation requested. A 3 stage Likert scale of appropriate somewhat appropriate and inappropriate was used and the data analyzed using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) IBM Corp. version 23.0 (Armonk, NY: USA). The results were expressed in percentages and frequencies and presented in tables and charts. Results: Of the 2053 request forms, X-rays constitute 32.54% while ultrasound scans and computed tomography (CT) investigations constitute 43.21% and 5.46%, respectively. Clinical information was indicated in 51.39% of the RRF, out of which 75.95% of the clinical information were adequate while 13.93% were not in keeping with the investigation. Ultrasound scan request had the highest inappropriate clinical information (54.68%) followed by plain radiography request (41.73%) whereas all the CT request was in tandem with the investigation. Conclusion: There are occasional clinical information and radiologic request mismatch. This may be due to the filling of the RRF by medical interns or nonmedical personnel such as allied health workers with less knowledge on radiologic imaging modalities. The audit recommends proper supervision of young clinicians and continues medical education concerning the rational use of imaging modality.