Title : Comparing the radiological versus surgical findings to improve care for emergency general surgical patients
Abstract:
Discrepancies in radiology reports when compared to surgical operative findings are common (1). Previously, scoring has been a feature of evaluating errors. Now, greater emphasis on understanding error is encouraged through discrepancy categorisation and Learning from Discrepancy meetings (LDMs) (2). This audit seeks to examine discrepancies in radiology reports and operative findings in emergency general surgical patients to improve clinician performance and patient care.
All emergency abdominal radiology reports and emergency surgery intraoperative findings between 1/7/22 – 7/8/22 were identified at The Princess Royal University Hospital. Comparisons were made and discrepancies were highlighted. Examination of local practice taken against discrepancies was compared to national guidelines (2). Timing of reports made was also examined.
35 radiology reports vs surgical findings were reviewed. Complete discrepancy was found in 9% (3 reports), with no discrepancy in 91% (32 reports). All reports with discrepancy were made out of hours.
Currently there is no specific system determining clinical significance of cases chosen for LDMs. Using a binary method of 'complete discrepancy' and 'no discrepancy’ may not provide sufficient detail for defining clinical significance. A grading system determining clinical significance of discrepancies could provide more systematic approach for cases chosen for discussion.
Audience Take Away Notes:
- This audit aims to better understand the reasons for discrepancies in radiology reports and surgical operative findings
- We hope to make recommendations to clinical practice to reduce the number of discrepancies present, overall improving patient care.
- We hope our systematic approach of determining clinical significance will aid selection of cases to be discussed in learning from disciplinary meetings to aid learning for the audience
