Abstract
A departmental tool that provides a digital/administrative solution for communication
of important imaging findings was evaluated.
The tool allows the radiologist to click a button to mark an examination for ordering
physician follow-up with subsequent fax and confirmation. The tool's log was reviewed.
Of 466 entries; 99.4% were successfully faxed with phone confirmation. Most common
reasons for usage were lung nodule/mass (29.2%) and osseous fracture (12.4%). Subsequent
clinical action was documented in 41.0% of entries.
Our data show the reliability of the tool in assisting the communication of findings,
as well as providing documentation of notification, with minimal workflow disruption.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical ImagingAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Optimizing communication between the radiologist and the general practitioner.JBR-BTR. 2013; 96: 388-390
- Critical Findings: Timing of Notification in Neuroradiology.AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014; 35: 1485-1492
- Delays and errors in abnormal chest radiograph follow-up: a systems approach to promoting patient safety in radiology.J Eval Clin Pract. 2014; 20: 453-459
- Communication of Unexpected and Significant Findings on Chest Radiographs With an Automated PACS Alert System.J Am Coll Radiol. 2014; 11: 791-795
- How "consistent" is "consistent"? A clinician-based assessment of the reliability of expressions used by radiologists to communicate diagnostic confidence.Clin Radiol. 2014; 69: 745-749
- The "Open Letter": Radiologists' Reports in the Era of Patient Web Portals.J Am Coll Radiol. 2014; 11: 863-867
- Adoption of an integrated radiology reading room within a urologic oncology clinic: initial experience in facilitating clinician consultations.J Am Coll Radiol. 2014; 11: 496-500
- ACR Practice Guideline For Communication of Diagnostic Imaging Findings.2010
- Electronic messaging system for communicating important, but nonemergent, abnormal imaging results.Radiology. 2010; 257: 724-731
- The radiologist's workflow environment: evaluation of disruptors and potential implications.J Am Coll Radiol. 2014; 11: 589-593
- Actionable Findings and the Role of IT Support: Report of the ACR Actionable Reporting Work Group.J Am Coll Radiol. 2014; 11: 552-558
- National Patient Safety Goals Effective January 1, 2014.2014
- Standards for radiology interpretation and reporting in the emergency setting.Pediatr Radiol. 2008; 38: S639-S644
- Recommendations for the management of subsolid pulmonary nodules detected at CT: a statement from the Fleischner Society.Radiology. 2013; 266: 304-317
- Incidental chest radiographic findings in adult patients with acute cough.Ann Fam Med. 2012; 10: 510-515
- Coronary CT Angiography and Incidental Pulmonary Nodules.Circulation. 2014; 130: 634-637
- Efficiency of a semiautomated coding and review process for notification of critical findings in diagnostic imaging.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 186: 933-936
- Timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging test results in an outpatient setting: are electronic medical records achieving their potential?.Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169: 1578-1586
- Important imaging finding e-mail alert system: experience after 3 years of implementation.Radiology. 2009; 252: 747-753
- Four-year impact of an alert notification system on closed-loop communication of critical test results.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 203: 933-938
- Radiology order entry with decision support: initial clinical experience.J Am Coll Radiol. 2006; 3: 799-806
Article info
Publication history
Published online: January 14, 2015
Accepted:
January 5,
2015
Received in revised form:
December 10,
2014
Received:
September 19,
2014
Footnotes
☆Conflicts of interest: All authors: No disclosures related to the work under consideration or outside of the submitted work.
Identification
Copyright
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
