↓ Skip to main content

The fate of radiology report recommendations at a pediatric medical center

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Radiology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
The fate of radiology report recommendations at a pediatric medical center
Published in
Pediatric Radiology, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00247-017-3960-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bonmyong Lee, Hansel J. Otero, Matthew T. Whitehead

Abstract

The American College of Radiology (ACR) practice parameters for communication dictate that follow-up recommendations be suggested when appropriate. Radiologists assume that referring physicians read their reports and heed their advice. In reality, recommendations might not be carried out or even acknowledged. We aimed to determine the proportion of imaging recommendations that are acknowledged and acted upon. We conducted a retrospective review of all consecutive radiology reports containing "recommend" in the impression at a single academic children's hospital over a 1-month period. We documented point of care (emergency department, inpatient, outpatient), study type, recommendation wording, and communication method (report only or direct verbal). We reviewed medical records to ascertain whether the recommendations were acknowledged or executed. We used chi-square tests to evaluate associations between variables. P<0.05 was considered significant. We reviewed 526 reports and excluded 73. We included the remaining 453 reports, from 370 unique patients (201 male, 169 female). Inpatients comprised most reports (n=223), followed by emergency department (ED) patients (n=118) and outpatients (n=112). Among these reports, 69% (n=313) of recommendations were executed. Of the 140 recommendations not carried out, 14% were acknowledged in clinical notes. Compliance correlated with point of care (ED>inpatient>outpatient; P=0.001) but not with additional verbal communication (P=0.33), study type (radiograph vs. other; P=0.35) or type of follow-up recommendation (follow-up imaging vs. other; P=0.99). Nearly one-third of radiology report follow-up recommendations are not executed. Recommendations are most commonly neglected for outpatient imaging reports. The radiology community should take steps to improve recommendation adherence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Researcher 3 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 15%
Student > Master 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 5 25%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 20%
Unspecified 2 10%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 2 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,452,930
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#1,766
of 2,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,878
of 315,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#48
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,094 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.