Cargando…

Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?

OBJECTIVES: To determine if polyp detection at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is associated with (a) the number of CTC examinations interpreted per day and (b) the length of time spent scrutinising the scan. METHODS: Retrospective observational study from two hospitals. We extracted Radiolo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Obaro, Anu E., Plumb, Andrew A., North, Michael P., Halligan, Steve, Burling, David N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6795616/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30963278
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06175-y
_version_ 1783459477826043904
author Obaro, Anu E.
Plumb, Andrew A.
North, Michael P.
Halligan, Steve
Burling, David N.
author_facet Obaro, Anu E.
Plumb, Andrew A.
North, Michael P.
Halligan, Steve
Burling, David N.
author_sort Obaro, Anu E.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To determine if polyp detection at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is associated with (a) the number of CTC examinations interpreted per day and (b) the length of time spent scrutinising the scan. METHODS: Retrospective observational study from two hospitals. We extracted Radiology Information System data for CTC examinations from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015. For each examination, we determined how many prior CTCs had been interpreted by the reporting radiologist on that day and how long radiologists spent on interpretation. For each radiologist, we calculated their referral rate (proportion deemed positive for 6 mm+ polyp/cancer), positive predictive value (PPV) and endoscopic/surgically proven polyp detection rate (PDR). We also calculated the mean time each radiologist spent interpreting normal studies (“negative interpretation time”). We used multilevel logistic regression to investigate the relationship between the number of scans reported each day, negative interpretation time and referral rate, PPV and PDR. RESULTS: Five thousand one hundred ninety-one scans were interpreted by seven radiologists; 892 (17.2%) were reported as positive, and 534 (10.3%) had polyps confirmed. Both referral rate and PDR reduced as more CTCs were reported on a given day (p < 0.001), the odds reducing by 7% for each successive CTC interpreted. Radiologists reporting more slowly than their colleagues detected more polyps (p = 0.028), with each 16% increase in interpretation time associated with a 1% increase in PDR. PPV was unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting multiple CTCs on a given day and rapid CTC interpretation are associated with decreased polyp detection. Radiologists should be protected from requirements to report too many CTCs or too quickly. KEY POINTS: • CT colonography services should protect radiologists from a need to report too fast (> 20 min per case) or for too long (> 4 cases consecutively without a break). • Professional bodies should consider introducing a target minimum interpretation time for CT colonography examinations as a quality marker.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6795616
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67956162019-10-25 Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report? Obaro, Anu E. Plumb, Andrew A. North, Michael P. Halligan, Steve Burling, David N. Eur Radiol Gastrointestinal OBJECTIVES: To determine if polyp detection at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is associated with (a) the number of CTC examinations interpreted per day and (b) the length of time spent scrutinising the scan. METHODS: Retrospective observational study from two hospitals. We extracted Radiology Information System data for CTC examinations from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015. For each examination, we determined how many prior CTCs had been interpreted by the reporting radiologist on that day and how long radiologists spent on interpretation. For each radiologist, we calculated their referral rate (proportion deemed positive for 6 mm+ polyp/cancer), positive predictive value (PPV) and endoscopic/surgically proven polyp detection rate (PDR). We also calculated the mean time each radiologist spent interpreting normal studies (“negative interpretation time”). We used multilevel logistic regression to investigate the relationship between the number of scans reported each day, negative interpretation time and referral rate, PPV and PDR. RESULTS: Five thousand one hundred ninety-one scans were interpreted by seven radiologists; 892 (17.2%) were reported as positive, and 534 (10.3%) had polyps confirmed. Both referral rate and PDR reduced as more CTCs were reported on a given day (p < 0.001), the odds reducing by 7% for each successive CTC interpreted. Radiologists reporting more slowly than their colleagues detected more polyps (p = 0.028), with each 16% increase in interpretation time associated with a 1% increase in PDR. PPV was unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting multiple CTCs on a given day and rapid CTC interpretation are associated with decreased polyp detection. Radiologists should be protected from requirements to report too many CTCs or too quickly. KEY POINTS: • CT colonography services should protect radiologists from a need to report too fast (> 20 min per case) or for too long (> 4 cases consecutively without a break). • Professional bodies should consider introducing a target minimum interpretation time for CT colonography examinations as a quality marker. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-04-08 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6795616/ /pubmed/30963278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06175-y Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Gastrointestinal
Obaro, Anu E.
Plumb, Andrew A.
North, Michael P.
Halligan, Steve
Burling, David N.
Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?
title Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?
title_full Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?
title_fullStr Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?
title_full_unstemmed Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?
title_short Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?
title_sort computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?
topic Gastrointestinal
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6795616/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30963278
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06175-y
work_keys_str_mv AT obaroanue computedtomographiccolonographyhowmanyandhowfastshouldradiologistsreport
AT plumbandrewa computedtomographiccolonographyhowmanyandhowfastshouldradiologistsreport
AT northmichaelp computedtomographiccolonographyhowmanyandhowfastshouldradiologistsreport
AT halligansteve computedtomographiccolonographyhowmanyandhowfastshouldradiologistsreport
AT burlingdavidn computedtomographiccolonographyhowmanyandhowfastshouldradiologistsreport