Purpose
This investigation is part of a prospective National Institutes of Health–funded study evaluating three different methods for estimating the optimal length for placement of a new nasogastric (NG) tube. Abdomen radiographs were required to determine the location of the tube tip. Our objective was to analyze different methods by which the tube location was described in the radiology report of the abdominal radiographs, and the influence of the presence or absence of a relevant clinical history.
Methods
We reviewed the imaging reports obtained following placement of a new nasogastric tube in patients enrolled in the study.
Results
There were 188 studies. The x-ray report contained separate description and impression sections in 154. In 24 they were combined. When the history on the requisition indicated “tube placement” as the reason for the study, the location of the tube tip was given in the impression on 134/141 (95%). When the requisition failed to mention “tube placement” as the study indication, the impression only mentioned the tube tip location 4/13 (31%). The report provided a specific location for the tube tip in 115 of the 188 cases; in 73 of the 188 cases, the report stated that the tube tip “overlies/is in the region of” the stomach. On 29 occasions the report stated that the tube, not the tube tip, was in the stomach.
Conclusions
There is variation in the manner of reporting the location of NG tube tips. When the requisition fails to indicate “tube placement” as the study indication, the report impression often fails to mention the tube location.
The radiology report is an essential method by which the radiologist communicates with the referring physician . The report has a direct impact on clinical decisions and patient safety . It is the most important method by which radiologists transmit the results of their observations to referring clinicians .
As part of a study evaluating three different methods for estimating the optimal length for placement of a new nasogastric (NG) tube, abdominal radiographs were required. They were needed to determine the location of the tube tip after placement of the tube. The tube tip should be in the stomach.
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Methods
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Results
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Table 1
Correctness of Clinical History and Influence on the Content of the Impression of the Report
Tube Location is Specifically Stated in Report Impression Tube Location is NOT Stated in Report Impression Total History fails to ask for tube location 4 9 13 History asks for tube location 134 7 141
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Table 2
Methods of Describing Tube Tip Location
Tube Tip Location is Specifically Described Tube Tip Location is Only Generically Mentioned Total 115 73 188
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Discussion
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Conclusion
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
References
1. Bosmans J.M.L., Weyler J.J., Parizel P.M.: Structure and content of radiology reports, a quantitative and qualitative study in eight medical centers. Eur J Radio 2009; 72: pp. 354-358.
2. Pool F., Goergen S.: Quality of the written radiology report: a review of the literature. Am Coll Radiol 2010; 8: pp. 634-643.
3. ACR practice guideline for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. ACR practice guideline and technical standard.2008.American College of RadiologyReston, VA
4. Friedman P.J.: Radiologic reporting: structure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1983; 140: pp. 171-172.
5. Sistrom C.L., Langlotz C.P.: A framework for improving radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol 2005; 2: pp. 159-167.
6. Johnson A.J., Chen M.Y.M., Apadka M.E., et. al.: Radiology report clarity: a cohort study of structures reporting compared with convention dictation. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: pp. 501-506.
7. Johnson A.J., Ying J., Swan J.S., et. al.: Improving the quality of radiology reporting: a physician survey to define the target. J Am Coll Radiol 2004; 1: pp. 497-505.
8. Cohen M.D.: The radiologic report of the future: the ignored impression. J Am Coll Radiol 2008; 5: pp. 1017-1018.
9. Cohen M.: Content of a radiology report. Pediatr Radiol 2009; 39: pp. 1254.
10. Cohen M.D.: Reading portable radiographs—a call for honesty. J Am Coll Radiol 2011; 8: pp. 378-379.
11. Hall F.M.: The radiology report of the future. Radiology 2009; 251: pp. 313-316.
12. Dunnick N.R., Langlotz C.P.: The radiology report of the ruture: a summary of the 2007 intersociety conference. J Am Coll Radiol 2008; 5: pp. 626-629.
13. Johnson A.J., Chen M.Y., Swan J.S., et. al.: Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology 2009; 253: pp. 74-80.