JABFM
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Mundt, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Mundt, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice 17:256-263 (2004)
© 2004 American Board of Family Practice

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice

Radiographs in the Office: Is a Second Reading Always Needed?

Paul D. Smith, MD, Jonathan Temte, MD, John W. Beasley, MD and Marlon Mundt, MA, MS

From the Department of Family Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison

Correspondence: Address correspondence to Paul D. Smith, MD, 777 South Mills St., Madison, WI 53715-1896 (E-mail: psmith{at}fammed.wisc.edu)

Abstract

Background: We evaluated the frequency, nature, and importance of the changes in patient care that occurred as a result of differences in outpatient radiograph readings for cases in which the primary care clinician, hypothetically, would not request a second reading by a radiologist.

Methods: During 4 months, 1393 pairs of radiographic readings were collected from 9 volunteer primary care practices with 86 clinicians and a second reading by one of 42 radiologists. For 553, hypothetically, the clinician would not request a consultation from a radiologist. Review analysis of the 553 pairs revealed 100 (18.1%) radiographs in which the radiologist’s reading did not agree with the clinician’s reading. Data from the original visit and subsequent related care were abstracted from patient charts and reviewed. Changes in clinical care resulting from the radiologist’s reading were identified.

Results: The radiologists’ second reading of these 553 sets of radiographs resulted in 14 (2.5% of 553 and 14% of 100) cases of one or more changes in care. We found 38 documented or presumed changes in care and zero substantial changes in care.

Conclusions: Primary care clinicians are able to identify radiographs for which a second reading by a radiologist will not result in substantial changes in care.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Board of Family Medicine.