Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Aug 7;13(8):e0201694.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201694. eCollection 2018.

Impact of clinical history on choice of abdominal/pelvic CT protocol in the Emergency Department

Wilfred Dang  1   2 , Pawel D Stefanski  1   2 , Ania Z Kielar  1   2   3 , Mohamed El-Khodary  1   2 , Christian van der Pol  1   2 , Rebecca Thornhill  1   2   3 , Arash Jaberi  1   2 , Angel Y N Fu  1 , Matthew D McInnes  1   2   3
Affiliations

Impact of clinical history on choice of abdominal/pelvic CT protocol in the Emergency Department

Wilfred Dang et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Introduction: Radiologists and other specialty consultants play a role in diagnosing patients with acute abdominal conditions. Numerous Computed Tomography (CT) protocols are available and radiologists' choices are influenced by the clinical history provided. We hypothesize that the quality of the initial communication between referring physicians and radiologists greatly affects the utilization of health resources and subsequent patient care. The purpose of this pilot study was to employ a grading system to quantitatively evaluate a provided history. We also sought to evaluate inter-rater reliability by having radiologists evaluate sample histories and finally, to assess whether the quality of history has an impact on the number of CT protocols radiologists choose as potentially appropriate, with less potential protocols being seen as a positive outcome.

Methods: Four reviewers, (2 attendings and 2 residents) evaluated 350 consecutive clinical histories provided for patients presenting to a tertiary care Emergency Department (ED) between September-October, 2012. Reviewers graded histories on a 5-point scale using 4 categories of criteria. This includes a) presenting complaint, b) relevant past medical history or symptom evolution, c) objective laboratory or prior examination results and d) differential diagnosis.

Results: There was substantial agreement among all four reviewers when evaluating the quality of history, ICC 0.61, (95% CI 0.48-0.71). In particular, agreement amongst attending radiologists was substantial, with ICC 0.69 (0.48-0.80). Significant negative correlation was observed between history grade and number of potentially appropriate protocols in 3 of 4 reviewers (Spearman's rho: -0.394, -0.639, -0.864, p <0.0001 for these reviewers). This correlation was significantly stronger for attending radiologists (Spearman's rho: -0.763, 95% CI -0.7933 to -0.731; p<0.0001). Agreement was poor among reviewers when asked exactly how many protocols could potentially be used to answer the clinical question based on provided history, ICC 0.08, (95% -0.03-0.13).

Conclusion: Although there is still variability in radiologists' approach to protocoling urgent studies, a more comprehensive requisition history narrowed the number of protocols considered.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Chart representing the distribution of evaluated requisition based on history quality as evaluated by each individual reader.
History Quality grades correspond to: 1 = None/ minimal, 2 = Some history, 3 = Moderate history, 4 = Good history, 5 = Excellent history.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Graphic representation of observed negative correlation between history grade and number of protocols deemed appropriate to answer clinical question.
The number of protocols considered was grouped into 2 groups (1 and 2 = blue, 3 or more = red). The number of protocols deemed appropriate (Percentage) in each history grade category is depicted. History Quality grades correspond to: 1 = None /minimal, 2 = Some history, 3 = Moderate history, 4 = Good history, 5 = Excellent history. Note: For each individual and each quality category, the overall number of protocols chosen was converted to a percentage and normalized to 100% (of their own choices).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kocher K.E., Meurer WJ, Fazel R, Scott PA, Krumholz HM, Nallamothu BK. National trends in use of computed tomography in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med, 2011. 58(5): p. 452–62.e3. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.05.020 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bond K., Ospina MB, Blitz S, Afilalo M, Campbell SG, Bullard M., et al., Frequency, determinants and impact of overcrowding in emergency departments in Canada: a national survey. Healthc Q, 2007. 10(4): p. 32–40. - PubMed
    1. Pearce A, Pons D. Implementing Lean Practices: Managing the Transformation Risks. Journal of Industrial Engineering. 2013;790291, 19 pages.
    1. Berlin L., Communicating findings of radiologic examinations: whither goest the radiologist’s duty? AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2002. 178(4): p. 809–15. 10.2214/ajr.178.4.1780809 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Berlin L., Communicating radiology results. Lancet, 2006. 367(9508): p. 373–5. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68114-2 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources