Overall documentation is for everyone's interest. Certainly it is helpful legally. But most importantly it improves the patient's health care delivery and increases overall patient safety.
When I have a busy day, I get intensely focused on viewing and interpreting the studies in front of me. That is the core of what I am trained to do.
But lately, it seems I am being asked to add new information to my reports all the time. More clinical information; radiation does information; more information about contrast media and renal function. Under pressure, I tend to feel irritated by anything that keeps me from that core. Sometimes that includes that ever increasing number of items I need to add to my reports other than the findings and impression. At times when I'm annoyed with that I reflect on several things that help to remind me that those things are critical to my mission: optimizing the patient's overall healthcare.
Radiologists are in a unique position in medicine. Today, not only do we get to receive information from a variety of sources, we often are the most rigorous in obtaining and reviewing old imaging. That is increasingly critical for patient management. We add clinical information from all sources, from the patient, old records and multiple specialist evaluations. What is interesting to me is that we then distill that information in our reports, as clinical history or in our impression and recommendations. That comprehensive information is then disseminated to a variety of providers.
Radiation dose information may seem superfluous as of now. It's a black box. We really don't know how it might be needed or used in the future. By adding it to our reports and being conscious of it, we are providing an important function - potentially improved patient safety in the future.
Moreover, this makes both us and the imaging facility more aware of dosing. It allows us to look for consistent variability in dosage by facility or to look for aberrant studies. I, for one, had become pretty complacent about radiation dosages. I really only paid passing attention to radiation dosages for years. Including the dose in my reports has brought greater awareness, and probably better patient safety.
Similarly, comprehensively reporting our measurement or calculation of renal function affords safety for the patient. When they do have problems, we have an accurate baseline. Again, we, in safety world become more aware of the safety concerns and can forge a more proper policy.
Overall documentation is for everyone's interest. Certainly it is helpful legally. But most importantly it improves the patient's health care delivery and increases overall patient safety.
Study Reaffirms Low Risk for csPCa with Biopsy Omission After Negative Prostate MRI
December 19th 2024In a new study involving nearly 600 biopsy-naïve men, researchers found that only 4 percent of those with negative prostate MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer after three years of active monitoring.
Study Examines Impact of Deep Learning on Fast MRI Protocols for Knee Pain
December 17th 2024Ten-minute and five-minute knee MRI exams with compressed sequences facilitated by deep learning offered nearly equivalent sensitivity and specificity as an 18-minute conventional MRI knee exam, according to research presented recently at the RSNA conference.
Can Radiomics Bolster Low-Dose CT Prognostic Assessment for High-Risk Lung Adenocarcinoma?
December 16th 2024A CT-based radiomic model offered over 10 percent higher specificity and positive predictive value for high-risk lung adenocarcinoma in comparison to a radiographic model, according to external validation testing in a recent study.