- Email: [email protected]
Radiologists: forever in the shadows?
Abstracts / Clinical Radiology 69 (2014) S23eS25
Results: 96% of respondents felt that a key role is the reporting of scans. 19% felt undertaking interventional procedures is one of the largest roles. Only 13% of junior doctors were aware of IR(ME)R, compared with 62% of doctors post-FY1 and 100% of radiologists questioned. 96% found discussions about tests useful. 100% found MDT participation useful. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that hospital doctors’ perceptions of the key roles of radiologists are variable. Knowledge of IR(ME)R amongst juniors is poor, which could be addressed using interventions such as teaching and leaflets. Most respondents found discussion with radiologists in clinical encounters useful and the value of this should be emphasised. Radiologists: forever in the shadows? Authors: Muhammad A. Zamir, Mohamed Khalifa, Junaid Patel, Usman Raja, Ahmed Wobi Presenter: Muhammad Zamir Purpose: Objectively assess public awareness of the role of the radiologist. Methods and materials: Multi- centre survey with quantitative and qualitative questionnaire. Results: 80% of respondents had undergone a radiological investigation although 38% had not heard of the term ’radiology’; 64% believed that radiologists were qualified radiographers and 72% assumed that GPs/referrers reported their scan. 66% said it was ’important’ or ’very important’ as to who reported their scan. Conclusion: Modern medicine leans heavily on radiology for diagnosis and patient turnover in radiology departments is increasing. Despite this, the general public is not familiar with radiology or radiologists and the fact that they are qualified medical practitioners. Radiologists have traditionally had nominal publicity compared to clinical specialists but the results are surprising. The presupposition that referrers/GPs are responsible for scan reports can lead to pressure on clinicians and patient misinformation. The American College of Radiology has spearheaded a campaign entitled “Face of Radiology” to revise perception of radiologists. A campaign in the UK would enhance public understanding of the “who, what and why” related to radiology. In particular, the medical background of radiologists and role in the MDT must be emphasised enabling patients to acknowledge that their investigation is integral for diagnosis and management. This awareness will ultimately lead to a satisfactory patient-centred experience. Impact of cancer symptom awareness campaigns on diagnostic testing and treatment Authors: Abigail Bentley, Erika Denton, Lucy Ironmonger, Sean Duffy Presenter: Erika Denton Purpose: ’Be Clear on Cancer’ aims to raise awareness of cancer symptoms and improve early diagnosis. The first national lung campaign (May- June
S25
2012), encouraged people with a 3 week cough to visit their GP. Understanding the impact of such campaigns on health services, including imaging activity, is vital. Methods and materials: Data on chest x-rays (CXR) and chest/ abdominal CT scans were collected via the Diagnostic Imaging Dataset (DID). The number of tests was compared between April and MayJuly 2012, adjusting for submitting organisations and working days. A control of the same period in 2013 was used (DID does not hold data for 2011). Results: GP-referred CXRs and CT scans increased by 19% and 16% respectively (p < 0.01) during May-July, compared with April, but decreased by 17% and 6% respectively (p < 0.05) during the same period in 2013. A 9% increase in lung cancer diagnoses was seen (p < 0.01) with a 3 percent point increase in the proportion of non-small cell cases diagnosed at stage 1 (p < 0.01). The proportion of patients having surgical resection as a first definitive treatment increased from 13.7% to 16.0% (p < 0.01). Conclusion: A substantial but manageable increase in tests was seen during and following the campaign, complementing changes in other metrics, including a positive shift in stage distribution. Efforts to achieve early diagnosis are vital and require support from a range of health professionals. Any qualified provider of ultrasound e can it compete with integrated service provision and services with access to specialist opinion? Authors: Christopher Ball, Anthony Higginson Presenter: Christopher Ball Purpose: An accurate sonography report can reliably detect common causes of abdominal pain (1). A report containing uncertainty causes confusion and has been shown to be more prevalent in unsupervised reports in comparison with specialist radiologist reports (2). The aim is to evaluate the effect of access to specialist ultrasound opinion and contrast ultrasound on the diagnostic pathway of patients and quantify the value added added by an integrated service. Methods and materials: Calculate the number of patients without cancer discussed at the hepatobiliary MDT meeting as a result of ultrasound reports. Determine the number of unnecessary tests performed involving interventional procedures or ionising radiation, including computed tomography. Results: A retrospective search identified 6873 abdominal ultrasound examinations - 1486 referrals to an outsourced treatment centre and 5397 to an NHS trust with subspecialist opinion. There was a 20 fold reduction in patients without cancer being discussed in a cancer meeting when the pathway includes access to a radiologist with specialist interest and access to contrast enhanced ultrasound examinations. There was also a 10 fold reduction in uncertainty from specialist opinion. Conclusion: Access to specialist opinion has a measurable impact on patient pathways reducing unnecessary further investigations on patients who have no serious pathology.
Results: 96% of respondents felt that a key role is the reporting of scans. 19% felt undertaking interventional procedures is one of the largest roles. Only 13% of junior doctors were aware of IR(ME)R, compared with 62% of doctors post-FY1 and 100% of radiologists questioned. 96% found discussions about tests useful. 100% found MDT participation useful. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that hospital doctors’ perceptions of the key roles of radiologists are variable. Knowledge of IR(ME)R amongst juniors is poor, which could be addressed using interventions such as teaching and leaflets. Most respondents found discussion with radiologists in clinical encounters useful and the value of this should be emphasised. Radiologists: forever in the shadows? Authors: Muhammad A. Zamir, Mohamed Khalifa, Junaid Patel, Usman Raja, Ahmed Wobi Presenter: Muhammad Zamir Purpose: Objectively assess public awareness of the role of the radiologist. Methods and materials: Multi- centre survey with quantitative and qualitative questionnaire. Results: 80% of respondents had undergone a radiological investigation although 38% had not heard of the term ’radiology’; 64% believed that radiologists were qualified radiographers and 72% assumed that GPs/referrers reported their scan. 66% said it was ’important’ or ’very important’ as to who reported their scan. Conclusion: Modern medicine leans heavily on radiology for diagnosis and patient turnover in radiology departments is increasing. Despite this, the general public is not familiar with radiology or radiologists and the fact that they are qualified medical practitioners. Radiologists have traditionally had nominal publicity compared to clinical specialists but the results are surprising. The presupposition that referrers/GPs are responsible for scan reports can lead to pressure on clinicians and patient misinformation. The American College of Radiology has spearheaded a campaign entitled “Face of Radiology” to revise perception of radiologists. A campaign in the UK would enhance public understanding of the “who, what and why” related to radiology. In particular, the medical background of radiologists and role in the MDT must be emphasised enabling patients to acknowledge that their investigation is integral for diagnosis and management. This awareness will ultimately lead to a satisfactory patient-centred experience. Impact of cancer symptom awareness campaigns on diagnostic testing and treatment Authors: Abigail Bentley, Erika Denton, Lucy Ironmonger, Sean Duffy Presenter: Erika Denton Purpose: ’Be Clear on Cancer’ aims to raise awareness of cancer symptoms and improve early diagnosis. The first national lung campaign (May- June
S25
2012), encouraged people with a 3 week cough to visit their GP. Understanding the impact of such campaigns on health services, including imaging activity, is vital. Methods and materials: Data on chest x-rays (CXR) and chest/ abdominal CT scans were collected via the Diagnostic Imaging Dataset (DID). The number of tests was compared between April and MayJuly 2012, adjusting for submitting organisations and working days. A control of the same period in 2013 was used (DID does not hold data for 2011). Results: GP-referred CXRs and CT scans increased by 19% and 16% respectively (p < 0.01) during May-July, compared with April, but decreased by 17% and 6% respectively (p < 0.05) during the same period in 2013. A 9% increase in lung cancer diagnoses was seen (p < 0.01) with a 3 percent point increase in the proportion of non-small cell cases diagnosed at stage 1 (p < 0.01). The proportion of patients having surgical resection as a first definitive treatment increased from 13.7% to 16.0% (p < 0.01). Conclusion: A substantial but manageable increase in tests was seen during and following the campaign, complementing changes in other metrics, including a positive shift in stage distribution. Efforts to achieve early diagnosis are vital and require support from a range of health professionals. Any qualified provider of ultrasound e can it compete with integrated service provision and services with access to specialist opinion? Authors: Christopher Ball, Anthony Higginson Presenter: Christopher Ball Purpose: An accurate sonography report can reliably detect common causes of abdominal pain (1). A report containing uncertainty causes confusion and has been shown to be more prevalent in unsupervised reports in comparison with specialist radiologist reports (2). The aim is to evaluate the effect of access to specialist ultrasound opinion and contrast ultrasound on the diagnostic pathway of patients and quantify the value added added by an integrated service. Methods and materials: Calculate the number of patients without cancer discussed at the hepatobiliary MDT meeting as a result of ultrasound reports. Determine the number of unnecessary tests performed involving interventional procedures or ionising radiation, including computed tomography. Results: A retrospective search identified 6873 abdominal ultrasound examinations - 1486 referrals to an outsourced treatment centre and 5397 to an NHS trust with subspecialist opinion. There was a 20 fold reduction in patients without cancer being discussed in a cancer meeting when the pathway includes access to a radiologist with specialist interest and access to contrast enhanced ultrasound examinations. There was also a 10 fold reduction in uncertainty from specialist opinion. Conclusion: Access to specialist opinion has a measurable impact on patient pathways reducing unnecessary further investigations on patients who have no serious pathology.