RESUMO
Introduction Prompt diagnosis forms the mainstay of management of any patient arriving at the hospital. In developed settings, apart from clinical assessment, imaging in the form of computed tomography (CT) scan plays a vital role in arriving at the patient diagnosis. The reporting should follow pre-defined Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) standards to improve the quality of the diagnostic process. Objectives To identify the compliance of reporting as per the RCR standards for the communication of radiological reports and fail-safe alert notification. Materials and methods A retrospective review of body CT scans was done in two cycles within a span of three months. A total of 100 randomized scans were assessed in each cycle, both from the A&E (accident and emergency) and inpatients. Normal scans and outpatient scans were excluded from the study. Data were collected using the online portal (CRIS) and statistical analysis was performed. Results After the first cycle of the audit, 95 reports out of 100 met the standard RCR criteria. After the second cycle, 97 reports met the criteria of the audit. One inpatient scan and two A&E reports did not meet the specified criteria in the second cycle. Conclusion After the two cycles of the audit carried out over three months, we were able to achieve almost 97% of reporting standards as compared to 95% obtained previously through a quality improvement project and create awareness.
RESUMO
Background and objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated the shift towards remote consultations in the medical field, including musculoskeletal (MSK) appointments. General practitioner (GP) registrars are now routinely conducting many MSK consultations remotely; however, very little is known of their level of confidence and satisfaction regarding this new and evolving scenario, or how this may impact patient management of patients. In this study, we aimed to understand GP registrars' level of confidence and satisfaction with respect to remote MSK consultations, and the perceived impact on patient management. Study design This study involved a cross-sectional online survey of GP registrars in the West Midlands, which was conducted in January 2021. Methods The survey asked for ranked responses to questions comparing face-to-face consulting methods with remote consulting, focusing on confidence, satisfaction, onward investigations, and referral activity. Statistical analysis was performed using the R software version 4.0.3. Results The overall survey response was 21.2% (n=312/1,471). Of the respondents, 85.9% of GP registrars had not received any training to prepare them for remote MSK consultations. GP registrars generally felt that they were more confident when treating patients face-to-face compared to remote consultations (p<0.001). This was true for general MSK complaints as well as specific assessments of the hand, shoulder, spine, hip, knee, and ankle; 36.2% of GP registrars were not satisfied and 51.0% thought that their patients were not satisfied with the current quality of remote MSK consultations. Of note, 77.6% of GP registrars said that they were more likely to request additional investigations, and 75.6% stated that they were more likely to refer patients to a specialist after a remote MSK consultation. Conclusion This study highlights the need for further training to better equip primary care doctors for remote MSK consultations. With tailored training, GP registrars could offer more streamlined remote patient care for MSK complaints.
