Clinical radiology: Going an extra mile for patient care

Abstract

Context: Clinical details help radiologists report accurately. However, the clinical aspect has taken a backseat among radiologists, who are overdependent on referral notes. This leads to inaccurate assessment, financial burden, and loss of man hours. Aims: To re-emphasize the benefits of detailed clinical evaluation and real-time monitoring of imaging in interpreting images. Settings and Design: Prospective study. Materials and Methods: A study was done in the Department of Radiodiagnosis for 10 days, including all referred patients above 18 years of age. Detailed history taking and examination was done by radiologists prior to imaging. Any additional significant clinical detail was endorsed on the referral slips. Appropriate imaging modality under given circumstances was carried out. Imaging was studied by the radiologists, near simultaneously with the acquisition. Any additional imaging needed was performed on the same day. Comprehensive reports with specific outputs were provided. Wherever apt, imaging-guided management options were offered to the patients. Results: During the study, 1024 patients with mean age of 46.3 years underwent various types of imaging, including radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound scans, and fluoroscopic procedures. Additional clinical details were endorsed in referral slips in 32.4% patients, 53% of which helped in interpreting images appropriately. Primary imaging modality was changed in 3% patients. Additional imaging was done in 10.9% patients. 3.6% of patients underwent imaging-guided procedures. Conclusion: Detailed history taking and examination help radiologists in deciding appropriate imaging and better interpretation of images. This will also reduce the number of visits to the hospital and expenditure on part of patients.

Keywords

Clinical evaluation - image interpretation - radiology - outpatient department

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
26. Juli 2021

• References

• 1 European Society of Radiology 2009. The future role of radiology in healthcare. Insights Imaging 2010; 1: 2-11
• 2 Loy CT, Irwig L. Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical information: A systematic review. JAMA 2004; 292: 1602-9
• 3 Schreiber MH. The clinical history as a factor in roentgenogram interpretation. JAMA 1963; 185: 399-401
• 4 Berbaum KS, Franken Jr EA, Dorfman DD, Barloon T, Ell SR, Lu CH. et al. Tentative diagnoses facilitate the detection of diverse lesions in chest radiographs. Invest Radiol 1986; 21: 532-9
• 5 Berbaum KS, Franken EA, Dorfman DD, Lueben KR. Influence of clinical history on perception of abnormalities in pediatric radiographs. Acad Radiol 1994; 1: 217-23
• 6 Griscom NT. A suggestion: Look at the images first, before you read the history. Radiology 2002; 223: 9-10
• 7 Hawkins CM, Anton CG, Bankes WM, Leach AD, Zeno MJ, Pryor RM. et al. Improving the availability of clinical history accompanying radiographic examinations in a large pediatric radiology department. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 790-6
• 8 Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM, Kim J. Long radiology workdays reduce detection and accommodation accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: 698-704
• 9 Sokolovskaya E, Shinde T, Ruchman RB, Kwak AJ, Lu S, Shariff YK. et al. The effect of faster reporting speed for imaging studies on the number of misses and interpretation errors: A pilot study. J Am Coll Radiol 2015; 12: 683-8
• 10 Hendee WR. An opportunity for radiology. Radiology 2006; 238: 389-94
• 11 Good BC, Cooperstein LA, Gur D. Radiologists' perceptions of and preferences for a concise history form during radiologic interpretation. Proc SPIE 1988; 914: 970-5 DOI: 10.1117/12.18949.