Evaluating discrepancy rates of radiology resident provisional reports for cross-sectional body imaging studies at a tertiary hospital

Introduction Urgent radiological studies obtained during on-call hours are often preliminarily read by on-call residents before consultant radiologists finalise the reports at a later time. Such provisional radiology reports provide important information to guide initial patient management. This study aims to determine discrepancy rates between provisional reports and final interpretations, and to assess the clinical significance of such discrepancies. Methods This retrospective quality assurance project reviewed a total of 1218 cross-sectional imaging studies of the body (thorax, abdomen and pelvis) done between July 2015 and May 2016 during on-call hours. The studies included 1201 Computed tomography (CT) scans and 17 Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans. Studies with incomplete or unavailable reports were excluded. Conclusions of both the provisional and final reports of each study were reviewed for concordance, with reference to the full report if needed. Discrepancies were graded according to the ACR 2016 RADPEER scoring system. Results There were 1210 studies with complete reports. Discrepant reports were noted in 183 (15.1%) studies. Of these, 89 (7.3%) were assessed to be clinically significant and the majority of these (55) were due to interpretations which should be made most of the time. CT of the abdomen and pelvis were the most prone to discrepant reports, accounting for 148 cases (80.9%). Conclusion The majority of preliminary reports for on-call body scans were concordant with final interpretations. The discrepancy rates for provisional body scan reports provided by residents while on call were comparable to those previously reported in literature.

Terminology as a source of difficulty in translating international legal discourses: an empirical cross-genre study

Despite the persistent focus on terminology in legal translation studies, to date, no large-scale research has empirically explored the difficulty of terminology in translating legal genres. Approaches to translation difficulty in translation studies more broadly remain limited in scope. To fill this gap, a study was conducted to measure the difficulty associated with the translation of legal terminology and phraseology, as well as with terminology of other domains, in the LETRINT 1+ corpus, including nine representative genres of three institutional settings (the European Union, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization). For comparative purposes, four levels of translation difficulty were assigned to multiple terminological features by a group of specialized translators through a consensus-building process of annotation based on the cognitive effort estimated for translation decision-making. The difficulty scores obtained confirm the correlation between legal singularity and higher translation difficulty, as well as the connection of more commonly used legal terms and phrasemes, and core economic terms, with lower difficulty levels. The findings also provide evidence of the prominence of non-legal specialized terminology in institutional legal discourses, and the aggregate terminological difficulty levels of each genre examined, which can be particularly useful for informing translation quality assurance, project management and translator training.

Decolonizing Action Research through Two-Eyed Seeing: The Indigenous Quality Assurance Project

Action Research (AR) has been widely utilized in Indigenous contexts because of its emphasis on social transformation and synergies with Indigenous research approaches. Yet, while AR is seen as an attractive option for working in Indigenous research contexts, additional efforts are needed to ensure that AR adequately interrogates collaborations between Western and Indigenous knowledge systems. The application of the principle of two-eyed seeing (TES), which refers to the process of seeing from the strengths of Indigenous ways of knowing with one eye while using the other eye to see with the strengths of Western ways of knowing (Bartlett, Marshall, & Marshall, 2012), can center decolonial goals, addressing the shortcomings of AR. This article describes the operationalization of TES through the Indigenous Quality Assurance Project, focusing on the four key essentials of TES: co-learning, knowledge scrutinization, knowledge validation, and knowledge gardening (Bartlett, 2017).

Fentanyl Quality Assurance Project Prompted Change in Clinical Workflow and Test Configurations

Background Deaths attributable to fentanyl (FEN, a synthetic opioid) are high in Appalachia and highest in West Virginia. The goal of the study was to determine FEN prevalence among specimens submitted for definitive opioid testing and monitor responses to provider notifications of unexpected FEN findings during Q1 2020. Methods All definitive opioid test data were reviewed daily for FEN signatures in Q1 2020. Unexpected FEN results were communicated to providers and monitored for 10 days to record actions taken. Prevalence data were categorized. Behavioral Medicine (BMED) leaders analyzed January data and implemented FEN screening in the clinic. BMED Q1 clinic visits and order volumes for drug screens were reviewed after Q1. Results FEN positivity was 11% in Q1; >60% of findings were unexpected. Actions were taken for 54% of notifications in January but only 18% in March. Notifications required 70 hours of combined laboratory effort each month. BMED providers ordered 44% of definitive opioid tests and 69% of definitive FEN tests. Data prompted the addition of FEN to routine drug screen panels in the laboratory, and a 10% random FEN screening rate in the BMED opioid use disorder clinics (COAT). Conclusions Prevalence of FEN positivity was higher than initially expected, even for this region in Appalachia. Expanded presence of FEN screening should assist BMED providers with clinical efforts and help identify patients in need of intervention/therapy.

CT Abdominal Tomography Indications: Are We All Sticking to the Plan?

Objective: Ultra-low radiation dose computed tomography (CT) abdominal tomography was introduced in our institution in 2016 to replace standard abdominal radiography in the investigation of emergency department patients. This project aims to ascertain whether investigation of emergency department patients using ultra-low radiation dose CT abdominal tomography complies with original indication guidelines and/or if there has been any “indication creep” 3 years after inception. Methods: Retrospective, quality assurance project with research ethics waiver. A review of 200 consecutive patients investigated with CT abdominal tomography between February and May 2017 was performed. This was compared with 200 consecutive patients investigated between February and May 2019. Data analyzed included patient demographics, indication for scan, as well as scan and patient outcomes. Results: In the 2017 group, 29/200 scans were noncompliant with approved indication guidelines. In the 2019 group, 30/200 scans were also noncompliant. There was no statistically significant difference between groups ( P < .05) regarding the use of approved indications. Forty of 200 scans performed in 2017 revealed additional findings which are not specifically addressed on the reporting template. Forty-one of 200 scans in 2019 revealed these findings. Conclusions: There has been no “indication creep” for CT abdominal tomography over time.

Reporting Standards for a Bland–Altman Agreement Analysis

The Bland&ndash;Altman Limits of Agreement is a popular and widespread means of analyzing the agreement of two methods, instruments, or raters in quantitative outcomes. An agreement analysis could be reported as a stand-alone research article but it is more often conducted as a minor quality assurance project in a subgroup of patients, as a part of a larger diagnostic accuracy study, clinical trial, or epidemiological survey. Consequently, such an analysis is often limited to brief descriptions in the main report. Therefore, in several medical fields, it has been recommended to report specific items related to the Bland&ndash;Altman analysis. Seven proposals were identified from a MEDLINE/PubMed search on March 03, 2020, three of which were derived by reviewing anesthesia journals. Broad consensus was seen for the a priori establishment of acceptability benchmarks, estimation of repeatability of measurements, description of the data structure, visual assessment of the normality and homogeneity assumption, and plotting and numerically reporting both bias and the Bland&ndash;Altman Limits of Agreement, including respective 95% confidence intervals. Abu-Arafeh et al. provided the most comprehensive and prudent list, identifying 13 key items for reporting (Br. J. Anaesth. 2016, 117, 569&ndash;575). The 13 key items should be applied by researchers, journal editors, and reviewers in the future, to increase the quality of reporting Bland&ndash;Altman agreement analyses.

586 Scalp Burn Injury Associated with Hair Highlight Treatment

Introduction Hair highlighting treatment has become popular at salons across the country. The ubiquity of this beauty treatment gives many people the impression that it is safe. The process of changing hair color differs between hair salons and hair stylists. We describe the cases of two teenage patients who received third degree burns from hair highlighting treatments. Differences in highlighting technique and treatment modality will be compared and contrasted. Methods As part of a quality assurance project looking at variation in scalp burn treatment and outcome, two patients were identified who experienced scalp burn injury due to hair highlighting. Patient 1 received a hot foil hair lighting application. After 5 minutes, the patient experienced tingling in the scalp and removed heat lamp and foils from hair. The first two weeks of treatment were administered by her primary care provider before the patient admitted to our burn facility, where topical collagenase was initiated. Forty two days after initial injury the patient underwent first surgery for debridement, followed by subsequent excision and grafting of scalp. Patient returned for tissue expansion nine months later. Patient 2 received a hair highlighting treatment of bleach and water. Patient 2 complained of burning and immediately her hair was washed out by the hairdresser. The patient was seen two weeks later in our clinic, and treated conservatively with mineral oil and antibacterial topical application. Patient was offered tissue expansion surgery but declined. Results Table 1. compares injury type, treatment and outcome in these two patients. Both injuries required significant time to heal, ranging between 56–70 days. Although similar injuries, mode of treatment differed at this same institution. Both patients made decisions based on school activities and fear or surgery, which prolonged time of conservative treatment. Patient 1 received psychological support and anti-anxiety medication prior to all treatments. After tissue expansion Patient 1 no longer required medication and had no sign of alopecia. Patient 2 has area of alopecia 2x2 cm. Neither patient requires further follow up, however Patient 2 could return for tissue expansion if desired. Conclusions Hair highlighting is a risk for serious scalp burn injury. Conservative treatment (often per patient preference) is associated with prolonged days to healing. Surgical intervention which includes subsequent tissue expansion, combined with psychological support and anxiety management results in good outcome. Applicability of Research to Practice Results from this analysis will be used to develop treatment protocols and staff education on scalp burn injury.