Ensuring Appropriateness of Pediatric Second Opinion Consultations |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California Irvine, Orange, CA;2. Department of Pediatrics, Children''s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA;3. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Children''s Hospital of Orange County, Orange, CA;4. Department of Radiology, Children''s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA;1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD;2. Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD;1. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA;2. Department of Radiology Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA;3. Department of Radiology, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX;4. School of Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MA;1. Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;2. Department of Radiology, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA;1. Department of Radiology, The Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Santa Clara, CA;2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA;3. Department of Neurology, The Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Oakland, CA;4. Department of Radiology, The Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Sacramento, CA;5. Department of Neurosurgery, The Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Redwood City, CA |
| |
| Abstract: | PurposeWe sought to evaluate discrepancy rates between outside interpretations, radiology trainee preliminary reports, and subspecialist attending final interpretations for pediatric second opinion consultations on plain film and computed tomography imaging and to evaluate the impact of a process improvement for second opinion consultations.MethodsOf a total of 572 requests for second opinion consultations during 1-year preintervention period, we utilized RADPEER to score concurrence of 158 requests which occurred overnight and included outside radiologist interpretations and resident preliminary reports. In consultation with clinician committees, we developed new guidelines for requesting second opinion consultations. We evaluated the impact on the number of consultations for the 1-year period following implementation of this process improvement.ResultsThere was concurrence between the outside interpretation and pediatric subspecialist second opinion in 146 of 158 cases (92%). There was concurrence between the radiology resident and pediatric subspecialist second opinion in 145 of 158 cases (92%). During the 1-year period following our process improvement implementation, the total number of second opinion consultations decreased to 185 (from 572, a decrease of 68%) and the number of overnight requests for resident preliminary reports decreased to 11 (from 158, a decrease of 93%).ConclusionsThere was a high degree of concurrence between interpretations provided by outside radiologists, overnight radiology residents, and attending pediatric radiologists at our institution. Analyzing institutional-specific discrepancy rates is a valuable first step in partnering with clinicians to develop appropriate guidelines for second opinion consultations. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
