The journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh · 2025
A neuroradiology e-mail service for a district general hospital in the COVID-19 era.
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.
McCullagh Mary T, McVerry Ferghal, Flynn Peter, MacKenzie Niall, Thompson Gillian, McCarron Mark O
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hospital care for most neurological patients occurs in district general hospitals (DGHs). The COVID-19 pandemic displaced our DGH weekly neuroradiology meeting to an email service.
METHODS: Neuroradiological discrepancies among selected neurological patients were compared between face-to-face (f2f) meetings and an e-mail service.
RESULTS: Among 734 consecutively selected patients there was no statistically significant differences in outcomes - frequency of clinically unimportant discrepancies (10.3% e-mail vs 12.8% f2f, p = 0.300) or frequency of clinically important discrepancies (16.0% e-mail vs 15.6% f2f, p = 0.889). Among all imaged patients assessed by a neurologist, clinically important discrepancies were estimated to be 4.2% (95% CI: 3.5%-5.0%), with little annual variation (Chi-square for trend, p = 0.156).
CONCLUSION: This study shows that DGH general radiology provides good quality reporting of neuroimaging, and neurologists provide a pivotal role in identifying patients who require neuroradiology second opinions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an e-mail service maintained neuroimaging quality assurance in a DGH.
METHODS: Neuroradiological discrepancies among selected neurological patients were compared between face-to-face (f2f) meetings and an e-mail service.
RESULTS: Among 734 consecutively selected patients there was no statistically significant differences in outcomes - frequency of clinically unimportant discrepancies (10.3% e-mail vs 12.8% f2f, p = 0.300) or frequency of clinically important discrepancies (16.0% e-mail vs 15.6% f2f, p = 0.889). Among all imaged patients assessed by a neurologist, clinically important discrepancies were estimated to be 4.2% (95% CI: 3.5%-5.0%), with little annual variation (Chi-square for trend, p = 0.156).
CONCLUSION: This study shows that DGH general radiology provides good quality reporting of neuroimaging, and neurologists provide a pivotal role in identifying patients who require neuroradiology second opinions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an e-mail service maintained neuroimaging quality assurance in a DGH.