Keywords:
Musculoskeletal, Bones, Musculoskeletal spine, CT, Observer performance, Screening, Structured reporting, Osteoporosis, Retrospective, Not applicable, Multicentre study
Authors:
N. Mahmood1, C. Law2, K. Drinkwater3, J. Illes4, J. Griffin3, K. Javaid5, D. Howlett6; 1Sussex /UK, 2East Sussex/UK, 3London/UK, 4Dorset/UK, 5Oxford/UK, 6Eastbourne/UK
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2020/C-09123
Results
The overall response rate was 63% (127/ 217 eligible departments with data received from 6307 patients.
Compliance with audit standards is demonstrated in Table 1.
VFF’s were incidentally present on 21% of scans (1344/6307) reviewed by the auditor. Of these 611 patients had a fracture mentioned in the primary report (45%).
In these 611 patients the initial report use the term ‘vertebral fracture’ in only 60% and the severity was graded in only 21%.
Where sagittal reformats were available, bone integrity was more likely to be commented upon. The association between unavailability of a sagittal reformat and comment on bone integrity (using Pearson chi-square, uncorrected for continuity) is 77.8, highly statistically significant (P=<0.0001). See Table 2.
Resuts from the organisational questionnaire showed very few recomendations are made for onward referral and there is limited awareness about fracture liason services (FLS's).