Clinical information available during emergency department imaging order entry and radiologist interpretation.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the proportion of Emergency Department (ED) radiology examinations ordered or interpreted prior to a documented clinical assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected 600 retrospective consecutive ED cases consisting equally of patients whose first ED imaging examination was computed tomography (CT), radiography (XR), or ultrasonography (US). For each patient, the following times were documented: ED arrival, ED departure, ED length of stay (LOS), imaging order entry, image availability, radiology report availability, triage note, ED provider note, and laboratory results. RESULTS: Mean age was 44.2, 66.5% female, and mean ED LOS was 326.2 min. ED LOS was longer for patients who received CT versus XR (343.9 vs. 311.3; p = 0.029). In 25.5% of XR, 10% of CT, and 8% of US cases, the imaging exam was completed before the ED provider note was started. In 20.5% of XR, 6.5% of CT, and 6% of US cases, the radiologist did not have the ED provider note available prior to completing their diagnostic interpretation. In 33.4% of all cases and 57.5% of XR cases, incomplete clinical documentation (triage note, provider note, lab results) was available during radiology report creation. CT and US exams more frequently had clinical data available prior to radiologist interpretation than XR (p < 0.0001). Radiologist turn-around-time was unaffected by clinical information availability. CONCLUSION: Eight percent of ED CT and 10% of ED US examinations were ordered and completed before documented clinical assessment. Thirty-three percent had incomplete clinical assessment performed prior to image interpretation. Further investigation is needed to determine impact on interpretation accuracy.

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: expected post-procedural findings and adverse events.

Complications related to endoscopy are commonly encountered in the emergency department (ED) due to an increased use of outpatient diagnostic and therapeutic upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. A majority of these procedures are performed on an outpatient basis, and patients with post-procedural symptoms may return to the ED. Since these patients often undergo computed tomography (CT) for diagnosis of post-procedure complications, the emergency radiologist should be familiar with the spectrum of expected post-procedural findings, as well as common and rare complications. We present a pictorial review of post-endoscopy complications and review imaging protocols in different clinical scenarios.

Lipofibromatous Hamartoma of the Median Nerve: A Case Report.

Lipofibromatous hamartoma is a rare and slow growing benign fibro-fatty tumor. It is characterized by the proliferation of mature adipocytes within the epineurium and the perineurium of the peripheral nerves. In the upper extremity, it most commonly affects the median nerve. Median nerve involvement commonly leads to pain, numbness, paresthesia and carpal tunnel syndrome. This article presents a case of lipofibromatous hamartoma in an 8-year-old child followed by a discussion of the epidemiology, diagnosis, imaging details and treatment options for this condition.

Amyand's Hernia: A Case Report.

Amyand's hernia is a rare and atypical hernia characterized by the herniation of the appendix into the inguinal sac. This hernia may be present without symptoms until inflammation of the appendix may lead to incarceration, strangulation, necrosis, perforation or rupture. Early symptoms include tenderness and inguinal swelling which may be misdiagnosed as a strangulated hernia. This condition can be difficult to diagnose clinically. Ultrasound and Computed Tomography may aid in diagnosis. This article presents a rare case of Amyand's hernia followed by a discussion of the epidemiology, diagnosis, imaging details and treatment options for this condition.

Ionizing Radiation Knowledge Among Emergency Department Providers.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess knowledge of ionizing radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging examinations among emergency department (ED) providers. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was distributed to ED providers in a five-hospital university-affiliated health care system. Providers included attending emergency medicine (EM) physicians, EM residents, and midlevel providers (MLPs) (nurse practitioners and physicians assistants). Data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred six of 210 providers (41 attending physicians, 32 residents, and 31 MLPs) completed the survey, for a response rate of 50.5%. More than two in five providers (44.6%) could not correctly identify which of six common imaging modalities used ionizing radiation. MLPs were more likely to incorrectly identify radiography (25%) and fluoroscopy (29%) as modalities that did not use ionizing radiation (P = .01 and P = .25 respectively). Fewer attending physicians (14.6%) than residents (37.5%) were not very comfortable or were uncomfortable explaining the risks of radiation to patients. Nearly half of attending physicians (47.5%) and nearly three-quarters of residents (71.9%) were not very comfortable, were uncomfortable, or were extremely uncomfortable explaining the amount of radiation in certain imaging tests to patients. MLPs were more likely to incorrectly rank a selection of imaging tests by radiation exposure (P = .002). MLPs were more likely to incorrectly answer a question on the effects of ionizing radiation on patients (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Among ED providers, there are knowledge gaps regarding the presence and effect of ionizing radiation in diagnostic imaging tests. MLPs were more likely to make factual errors, while EM residents were least comfortable counseling patients about radiation risks.