This poster is published under an
open license. Please read the
disclaimer for further details.
Type:
Educational Exhibit
Keywords:
Quality assurance, Technology assessment, Safety, Audit and standards, RIS, PACS, Computer applications
Authors:
K. Drinkwater1, K. A. Duncan2, N. Dugar3, D. Howlett4; 1London/UK, 2Aberdeen/UK, 3Doncaster/UK, 4Eastbourne/UK
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2017/C-1392
Findings and procedure details
- 67% (154/229) of invited departments responded.
Compliance with NPSA and RCR guidance
- 88% (136/153) of departments indicated that they had a defined policy in place for the communication of critical,
urgent,
and unexpected significant findings (compliant with NPSA guidance).
- 17% (26/154) of departments had an electronic read acknowledgement system (compliant with RCR guidance).
However,
in only 11 of the 26 of departments with an electronic acknowledgement system,
was someone regularly monitoring the read rate.
Therefore in 15 departments,
although available,
the result acknowledgement system was not being used.
Other findings
- 34% (53/154) of departments had an automated electronic alert system where the reporter clicks on a “send to fail-safe” tab,
35 to all referring clinicians including GPs,
and 18 for hospital clinicians only.
The majority of the 53 departments with an electronic alert system also had a range of safety-net procedures in place,
such as contacting referrers by telephone,
e-mail and fax,
and also notifying the relevant multidisciplinary team (MDT) co-ordinators.
- 71% of departments used outsourcing.
However,
in only 21 departments were alerts raised by the outsourced reporter passed on electronically to referrers,
with 23 departments relying on secretaries to pass on this alert.
- The range of new cancer,
critical,
urgent,
and unexpected significant radiological findings alerts issued by responding departments was very variable and is illustrated in Figs 1-3.