Ultrasound (Leeds, England) · 2026
Scanning the evidence: A pilot study evaluating the accuracy of sonographer reporting in the Republic of Ireland.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tyler Jacqueline, Waring Lorelei, Bolton Gareth C, Miller Paul K
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), sonographers undertake ultrasound examinations but are limited to providing provisional reports requiring radiologist verification, except in obstetrics. ROI sonographers are educated to the same postgraduate standard as their independently reporting UK counterparts. This study investigates the comparability of sonographer and radiologist reporting throughout ROI.
METHODS: This clinical audit included sonographers from six ROI hospital groups. Each submitted 400 randomly selected non-obstetric examinations over 6 months. Provisional sonographer reports were reviewed by supporting radiologists and allocated agreement scores based on the Riley 2010 grading system.
RESULTS: In total, 6037 examinations were audited of which 99.6% achieved acceptable grades (Grades 1 and 2), 0.35% (21) were Grade 3, and only two requiring upgraded pathology classification. No reports were Grade 4 (unacceptable).
CONCLUSION: This large, multicentre audit demonstrates the accuracy of sonographer reporting in the ROI with an agreement score of over 99%. Given this evidence and the substantial international literature demonstrating that sonographer reporting is both safe and effective, health authorities, regulatory agencies and imaging departments should consider developing systems to allow sonographers to report independently without routine radiologist oversight. This could release radiologists to undertake other duties, reducing waiting lists in both ultrasound and broader radiology.
METHODS: This clinical audit included sonographers from six ROI hospital groups. Each submitted 400 randomly selected non-obstetric examinations over 6 months. Provisional sonographer reports were reviewed by supporting radiologists and allocated agreement scores based on the Riley 2010 grading system.
RESULTS: In total, 6037 examinations were audited of which 99.6% achieved acceptable grades (Grades 1 and 2), 0.35% (21) were Grade 3, and only two requiring upgraded pathology classification. No reports were Grade 4 (unacceptable).
CONCLUSION: This large, multicentre audit demonstrates the accuracy of sonographer reporting in the ROI with an agreement score of over 99%. Given this evidence and the substantial international literature demonstrating that sonographer reporting is both safe and effective, health authorities, regulatory agencies and imaging departments should consider developing systems to allow sonographers to report independently without routine radiologist oversight. This could release radiologists to undertake other duties, reducing waiting lists in both ultrasound and broader radiology.