Reporting RadiographerSonographer

A well established function with high rate of satisfaction

Questions

• Do patients have the same expectations

• In relation to – Quality of the examination– Quality of diagnosis– Information– Further treatment

FINDINGS

Patient 251 - 985

Retrospectiv Analysis.

Statistic

• 735 Reports.

• Nothing abnormal = 204 patients / 27,7%.

• 964 findings in 531 patients = ratio at 1,8

• Help to examination = 130 examinations / 17,6%

Patological findings.

• Gall bladder with

– Stone 196 patients = 26,7%– Sludge +– PLGB Polyp lesion in Gall bladder = 43

patients

– 239 patients / 32,5%

Patological findings.

• Focal lesions 28 patients. = 3,8%– Liver metastasis– Pancreatic tumor– Hypernephroma

• Cysts 85pt. = 11,6%– Kidneys– Liver

Patological findings.

• Liver steatose 83

• Haemangiomas 15

• Pancreatic 32

• Spleen 47

Patological findings.

• Nephrolithiasis 32

• Hydronephrosis 35

• Aorta – ectasia / sclerosis 30

• Ascites 35

Patological findings.

• Other: 173 patients = 23,5%• Calcifications, Angiomyolipomas• Lipioma / fibroma, Stents• Nephropathia, Cirrhosis, Dilatatio via bilarum• Cholecystitis, Portal enlarged lymph nodes,• Situs inversus, Nephrocalcinosis.• A. renalis stenosis.

Patological findings.

• GB:

• 520, 589, 629, 635, 782,

Patological findings.

• Focal Lesions: – Lever metastasis: 567, 645, 659, 872 – Pancreatic tumor: 600, – Hypernephroma:

• Cysts: 520, 541, 792, 818,

Materials and Methods

• A retrospective analysis of reports• Inconclusions criteria• Patients with classical upper abdominal

problems such as GB-stones or ulcer symptoms

• Selections bias are minimised by exclusion of patients with known oncological diseases or complicated procedures

Method

• A retrospective reading on reports of patients referred to fasting Ultrasound examination of the upper abdomen.

• This gives a clear picture of the prevalence in own material. Both regarding own examinations, but also with the possibility to compare with the radiologists within the speciality.

Data gathering• Included:• 250 Patients with:

– classical symptoms of gall bladder stones– Non characteristic symptoms of upper abdomen– Para clinical weight loss– Abnormal hepatic blood counts

• Excluded:Patients in known oncological treatment

Complicated examinations done by radiologists

Selection bias are hereby tried to be minimised.

ResultsXX Hospital50

YY Hospital50

ZZ Hospital50

ReRa x2100

Total

250

Other diagnosis 18 27 19 48 112

Polyps 3 4 1 2 10

Gall bladder stones

12 5 10 16 43

Nothing abnormal 23 19 24 42 108

Results %

XX Hospital50

YY Hospital50

ZZ Hospital50

ReRa x2100

Total

250

Other Diagnosis 36% 54% 38% 48% 45%

Polyps 6% 8% 2% 2% 4%

Gall bladder stones 24% 10% 20% 16% 17%

Nothing abnormal 46% 38% 48% 42% 43%

Production and economi

• Data gathering from the past 10 weeks

• 36% of the examinations were carried out by Reporting Radiographer

• 11 patients per day – 56 % non planned included

Positive and negative impact

• Positive– Shorter waiting time – all time is waiting time– A none negliable better prognose in treatment

of other patient with cancer diseases– Less worries in 27,7% - case closed without

findings!– Cheaper salary– More free ”space” for more complicated

procedures for the radiologists

Positive and negative impact

• Negative– None! – (no complains in more than 8.000

examinations!)– but– ”2” patient had asked for a ”doctor”

Future aspects

• Educationel matters

• DSDU the Danish Society of Diagnostic Ultrasound ”Drivers license”

• Training programmes

• EFSUMB recommendations

• Developing new fields– Well described borders

Conclusion

• Educationally conditions

• Well described frames an borders

• High success ratio with an

• Positive impact on

• Patient satisfaction and treatment and

• Economy

• Therefore

Reporting Radiographer

are needed!

Thank you for your attention