肾结石协议计算机断层扫描报告是否为我们提供了足够的信息?

C. Bayley, David B. Hogarth, Ryan Mclarty, Shubha De, Trevor Schuler
{"title":"肾结石协议计算机断层扫描报告是否为我们提供了足够的信息?","authors":"C. Bayley, David B. Hogarth, Ryan Mclarty, Shubha De, Trevor Schuler","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.8739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Non-contrast computed tomography (CT) is the gold-standard diagnostic test for urolithiasis. Little is published regarding which information needs to be included in the report for it to be most useful to the healthcare team for efficient triage and high-quality patient care. This study aimed to assess the quality and variability of CT scan reporting at a single Canadian tertiary academic medical center.\nMethods: We completed a retrospective review of 100 consecutive renal colic CT scans. Descriptive statistics were used to report the frequency with which specific elements commonly used by urologists to triage and treat patients were included in radiology reports.\nResults: Our sample had a mean age of 51.4±13.1 years. Stone size was universally reported for obstructing stones but was less frequently reported for non-obstructing stones (100% vs. 86.8%). A similar trend was observed for the exact stone number (100% vs. 93.4%). Non-obstructing stones were more likely than obstructing stones to be reported in one dimension (77.5% vs. 47%). Obstructing stones were reported in three dimensions 27% of the time. CT reports commonly include the presence or absence of hydronephrosis status (98%) but are less likely to include renal size (32%) and periureteral stranding (16%). Hounsfield units (HU) were reported in 3% of the reports, but skin-to-stone distance (SSD) and radiation dose were never reported.\nConclusions: Reports routinely included assessments of stone size, location, and number (although not uniformly). HU, SSD, and radiation dose were rarely reported. This provides insight into opportunities for standardized reporting to optimize knowledge transfer that may result in clinical efficiency and improved quality of patient care.","PeriodicalId":38001,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Urological Association Journal","volume":" 14","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are renal stone protocol computed tomography reports giving us enough information?\",\"authors\":\"C. Bayley, David B. Hogarth, Ryan Mclarty, Shubha De, Trevor Schuler\",\"doi\":\"10.5489/cuaj.8739\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Non-contrast computed tomography (CT) is the gold-standard diagnostic test for urolithiasis. Little is published regarding which information needs to be included in the report for it to be most useful to the healthcare team for efficient triage and high-quality patient care. This study aimed to assess the quality and variability of CT scan reporting at a single Canadian tertiary academic medical center.\\nMethods: We completed a retrospective review of 100 consecutive renal colic CT scans. Descriptive statistics were used to report the frequency with which specific elements commonly used by urologists to triage and treat patients were included in radiology reports.\\nResults: Our sample had a mean age of 51.4±13.1 years. Stone size was universally reported for obstructing stones but was less frequently reported for non-obstructing stones (100% vs. 86.8%). A similar trend was observed for the exact stone number (100% vs. 93.4%). Non-obstructing stones were more likely than obstructing stones to be reported in one dimension (77.5% vs. 47%). Obstructing stones were reported in three dimensions 27% of the time. CT reports commonly include the presence or absence of hydronephrosis status (98%) but are less likely to include renal size (32%) and periureteral stranding (16%). Hounsfield units (HU) were reported in 3% of the reports, but skin-to-stone distance (SSD) and radiation dose were never reported.\\nConclusions: Reports routinely included assessments of stone size, location, and number (although not uniformly). HU, SSD, and radiation dose were rarely reported. This provides insight into opportunities for standardized reporting to optimize knowledge transfer that may result in clinical efficiency and improved quality of patient care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Urological Association Journal\",\"volume\":\" 14\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Urological Association Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8739\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Urological Association Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8739","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:非对比计算机断层扫描(CT)是诊断尿路结石的金标准。关于报告中需要包含哪些信息才能对医疗团队有效分诊和高质量患者护理最有用,目前发表的文章很少。本研究旨在评估加拿大一家三级学术医疗中心的 CT 扫描报告的质量和可变性:我们对 100 例连续肾绞痛 CT 扫描进行了回顾性审查。方法:我们完成了 100 例连续肾绞痛 CT 扫描的回顾性审查,并使用描述性统计报告了放射学报告中包含泌尿科医生分诊和治疗患者时常用的特定元素的频率:我们的样本平均年龄为 51.4±13.1 岁。对于梗阻性结石,普遍报告了结石的大小,但对于非梗阻性结石,报告的频率较低(100% 对 86.8%)。结石的确切数目也有类似的趋势(100% 对 93.4%)。非梗阻性结石比梗阻性结石更有可能在一个维度上进行报告(77.5% 对 47%)。阻塞性结石有27%的报告是三维的。CT 报告通常包括有无肾积水状态(98%),但较少包括肾脏大小(32%)和输尿管周围绞窄(16%)。3%的报告中报告了霍斯菲尔德单位(HU),但从未报告皮肤到结石的距离(SSD)和辐射剂量:结论:报告通常包括对结石大小、位置和数量的评估(尽管并不一致)。结论:报告中通常包括对结石大小、位置和数量的评估(尽管并不一致),但很少报告HU、SSD和辐射剂量。这为标准化报告提供了机会,可优化知识转移,从而提高临床效率和患者护理质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are renal stone protocol computed tomography reports giving us enough information?
Introduction: Non-contrast computed tomography (CT) is the gold-standard diagnostic test for urolithiasis. Little is published regarding which information needs to be included in the report for it to be most useful to the healthcare team for efficient triage and high-quality patient care. This study aimed to assess the quality and variability of CT scan reporting at a single Canadian tertiary academic medical center. Methods: We completed a retrospective review of 100 consecutive renal colic CT scans. Descriptive statistics were used to report the frequency with which specific elements commonly used by urologists to triage and treat patients were included in radiology reports. Results: Our sample had a mean age of 51.4±13.1 years. Stone size was universally reported for obstructing stones but was less frequently reported for non-obstructing stones (100% vs. 86.8%). A similar trend was observed for the exact stone number (100% vs. 93.4%). Non-obstructing stones were more likely than obstructing stones to be reported in one dimension (77.5% vs. 47%). Obstructing stones were reported in three dimensions 27% of the time. CT reports commonly include the presence or absence of hydronephrosis status (98%) but are less likely to include renal size (32%) and periureteral stranding (16%). Hounsfield units (HU) were reported in 3% of the reports, but skin-to-stone distance (SSD) and radiation dose were never reported. Conclusions: Reports routinely included assessments of stone size, location, and number (although not uniformly). HU, SSD, and radiation dose were rarely reported. This provides insight into opportunities for standardized reporting to optimize knowledge transfer that may result in clinical efficiency and improved quality of patient care.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Published by the Canadian Urological Association, the Canadian Urological Association Journal (CUAJ) released its first issue in March 2007, and was published four times that year under the guidance of founding editor (Editor Emeritus as of 2012), Dr. Laurence H. Klotz. In 2008, CUAJ became a bimonthly publication. As of 2013, articles have been published monthly, alternating between print and online-only versions (print issues are available in February, April, June, August, October, and December; online-only issues are produced in January, March, May, July, September, and November). In 2017, the journal launched an ahead-of-print publishing strategy, in which accepted manuscripts are published electronically on our website and cited on PubMed ahead of their official issue-based publication date. By significantly shortening the time to article availability, we offer our readers more flexibility in the way they engage with our content: as a continuous stream, or in a monthly “package,” or both. CUAJ covers a broad range of urological topics — oncology, pediatrics, transplantation, endourology, female urology, infertility, and more. We take pride in showcasing the work of some of Canada’s top investigators and providing our readers with the latest relevant evidence-based research, and on being the primary repository for major guidelines and other important practice recommendations. Our long-term vision is to become an essential destination for urology-based research, education, and advocacy for both physicians and patients, and to act as a springboard for discussions within the urologic community.
期刊最新文献
Safety and efficacy of ultrasound-assisted bedside ureteric stent placement 2024 Canadian Urological Association endorsement of an expert report: Kidney involvement in tuberous sclerosis complex Sacral neuromodulation in pediatric refractory bladder and bowel dysfunction Fostering the continued growth of our association On vacation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1