Our idea was to test the request forms how they match the criteria of an ideal one from the radiological point of view.
The scene for the study is the possible best in the Hungarian scenario,
since the radiological department is a part of a county hospital where the oncological department is a regional center.
So the stuff is experienced and stable,
the patients have all of the investigations in this hospital,
which helps a lot in information spreading.
Thanks to these circumstances we are waiting the possible best results.
In all other situations where the audited patient group is more heterogeneous the results are supposed worse.
We defined a so-called ideal request form and controlled in 100 cases if they are found or not in the patients’ request form.
The selected important information in the ideal form are as follows:
Item 1: information if the case is a new diagnosis or a follow up study
Item 2: site of the tumor,
histology and primer TNM
Item 3: primer therapy data
Item 4: important events (new developed metastases,
recurrence) since the primer therapy,
secondary therapy
Item 5: information about previous imaging findings
Item 6: information about doubtful imaging findings and undetermined lesions
Item 7: information about coexisting other relevant diseases
Item 8: information about current clinical status including tumor markers
When indicated with “+” that means radiologists have got that kind of information,
if indicated with “-“ then they haven’t.
For inclusion criteria we selected only follow-up studies and request forms from the same hospital where the imaging department is.
The table below shows the results.
Item 1: 100% +
Item 2: 86% +
in 12% request forms do not tell the original TNM (primary site was in 100% given)
Item 3: 92% +
in 8% request forms do not tell what the primary therapy was
Item 4: 67% +
in 33% request forms do not tell if any oncologic events (recurrence,
met etc.) had been after
the primary therapy
Item 5: 61% +
in 59% request forms do not tell anything about previous imaging findings
Item 6: 22% +
in 22% do we get information about doubtful or undetermined lesions in request forms
Comment: number of patients with these kind of lesions is not known
Item 7: 26% +
In 26 % request forms tell about coexisting diseases
Comment: number of patients with coexisting diseases is not known
0 0 1 371 2120 [email protected] 17 4 2487 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
Item 8: 33% +
in 67% request forms do not tell anything about current status or markers