Skip Navigation



QJM Advance Access published online on February 9, 2006
QJM, doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcl012
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
99/3/171    most recent
hcl012v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McCarron, M.O.
Right arrow Articles by McCarron, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McCarron, M.O.
Right arrow Articles by McCarron, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Physicians. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: Journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received September 6, 2005
Revised January 1, 2006

Original Papers

Quality assurance of neuroradiology in a District General Hospital

M.O. McCarron 1 *, C. Sands 1, and P. McCarron 2

1 From the Altnagelvin Neurological Centre, Londonderry, UK
2 Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Queen's University, Belfast, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
M.O. McCarron, E-mail: markmccarron{at}doctors.org.uk


  Abstract

Background: An increasing number of neurologists in District General Hospitals (DGHs) rely on local neuroimaging reports from general radiologists.

Aim: To determine the level of disagreement between general radiologists and neuroradiologists in reporting neuroimaging from patients referred to a neurologist.

Design: Prospective observational study.

Methods: We studied 232 patients referred for a neuroradiologist's report on neuroimaging over a 17-month period. Pre-planned comparisons included primary and secondary report findings, length of report and suggestions for additional investigations.

Results: Of the 593 patients assessed during the study period, a neuroradiologist's report was sought for 232 (39%): 119 men, 113 women, mean age 46.1 (SD 17.6) years. Primary findings differed in 37 patients (15.9%) (95%CI 11.5-21.3). Reports from neuroradiologists changed subsequent management in 31 (13.4%) (95%CI 9.3-18.4). Differences in secondary findings occurred in 52 (22.4%) (95%CI 17.2-28.3), and differences in either primary or secondary outcomes in 77 (33.2%) (95%CI 27.2-39.6). The level of disagreement in primary findings was as frequent among patients investigated with magnetic resonance imaging as among computerized tomogram-only patients (p = 0.13). Neuroradiologists recommended additional investigations for 24 patients (10.3%) (95%CI 6.7-15.0) and provided longer reports than general radiologists (p < 0.001).

Discussion: Neuroimaging reports of some patients differ substantially between general radiologists and neuroradiologists. Optimal management of neurological patients in DGHs may require timely access to neuroradiologists.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.