Imaging in Patients with Crohnʼs Disease

Kordbacheh, Hamed; Baliyan, Vinit; Serrao, Jessica; Gee, Michael S.; Yajnik, Vijay; Sahani, Dushyant V.; Kambadakone, Avinash

doi:10.1097/mib.0000000000001088

Cited by 18 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of diagnostic imaging has grown significantly in the last few decades, owing to technological advances in diagnostic imaging. ( 1 , 2 ) A total of 124 million unique diagnostic imaging services (totaling $5.6 billion in Medicare payments) were performed for 34 million Medicare beneficiaries in 2014. ( 3 ) The growth in medical imaging has improved patient care, including more detailed views of the organ or body region of interest,( 4 , 5 ) but is also associated with some risks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classifying Safety Events Related to Diagnostic Imaging From a Safety Reporting System Using a Human Factors Framework

Lacson

Cochón

et al. 2019

Journal of the American College of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To measure diagnostic imaging safety events reported to an electronic safety reporting system (ESRS) and assess steps where they occurred within the diagnostic imaging workflow and contributing socio-technical factors. Methods: We evaluated all ESRS safety reports related to diagnostic imaging during calendar 2015 at an academic medical center with 50,000 admissions, 950,000 ambulatory visits, and performing 680,000 diagnostic imaging studies annually. Each report was assigned a 0-4 harm score by the reporter; we classified scores of 2 (minor harm) to 4 (death) as “potential harm”. Two reviewers manually classified reports into steps involved in the diagnostic imaging chain and socio-technical factors per the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework. Kappa measured inter-reviewer agreement on 10% of reports. The percentage of reports that could cause “potential harm” was compared for each step and socio-technical factor using chi-square analysis. Results: Of 11,570 safety reports submitted in 2015, 854 (7%) were related to diagnostic imaging. Although the most common step was Imaging Procedure (54% of reports), potential harm occurred more in Report Communication (Odds Ratio=2.36, p=0.05). Person factors most commonly contributed to safety reports (71%). Potential harm occurred more in safety reports that were related to Task compared to Person factors (OR=5.03, p<0.0001). Kappa was 0.79. Conclusion: Safety events were related to diagnostic imaging in 7% of reports and potential harm occurred primarily during Imaging Procedure and Report Communication. Safety events were attributed to multifactorial socio-technical factors. Further work is necessary to decrease safety events related to diagnostic imaging.

show abstract