Adequacy of completion of radiology request forms

Journal Title: Journal of the Indian Medical Association - Year 2018, Vol 116, Issue 1

Abstract

Radiology request forms are the sole mode of communication between the referring doctor and the radiologist in a hospital setup. Their importance, however, is highly underestimated. A radiological investigation may prove fruitless if a proper clinical background and the probable conditions to be ruled out are not provided with the request1. Inadequate information can also lead to errors in patient identification and delay in dispatching reports to the correct destination, and can reduce the value of the report. Moreover the follow up of the patient’s disease process is important in the field of radiology, especially in an academic set up where correct patient identification details are precious tools. Here I set out to perform a process audit of the adequacy of completion of such request forms in Barnard Institute of Radiology, Madras Medical College, Govt General Hospital, Chennai. A representative sample of 200 randomly selected request forms2 received by the radiology department in early November 2007 was reviewed. These included requests for a variety of examinations from different departments within Government General Hospital Chennai. A database of the collected forms was created, noting which of the various fields were adequately completed. Of the 200 request forms reviewed none proved to be complete. The percentages of various fields completed were patient’s name – 84% ; patient’s age – 80.5% ; referring ward no- 72% ;IP/OP/MRD No77%; referring doctor’s signature- 79%; referring doctor’s name – 7% ; name of responsible unit chief – 19.5% ; patient’s address- 0.5%; Request given in proper requisition form - 33.5% question to be answered – 13.5; the patient’s clinical background field was filled in 38.5% forms. However these were more often incomplete and unable to fulfill their purpose. Moreover only 33.5% requests were sent in the prescribed form, the rest were in plain papers. It is quite essential to bring about a change in this practice of sending incomplete radiology request forms. The referring clinicians should concentrate on giving a detailed clinical background to derive fruitful investigations and good reports.

Authors and Affiliations

K Saneej, C Amarnath, TS Swaminathan

Keywords

Related Articles

A case report of Tolosa Hunt syndrome

Tolosa Hunt syndrome is a rare clinical entitycharacterized by sudden onset of painful ophthalmoplegia and prompt response to steroid therapy1. Generally it involves third, fourth and sixth cranial nerves due to the pres...

Teenage pregnancy complications and outcomes in a tertiary care hospital

To investigate the problem of teenage pregnancy with a view to study complication and outcomes through a case control format. A prospective case control study, where 50 cases of teenage pregnant women (13-19 years) were...

Optimal management of Hypothyroidism

Hypothyroidism was the first of the endocrine disease treated by replacement of the deficient hormone with extracts of animal thyroid glands. The development of more purified and synthetic thyroid hormone preparations ha...

Analysis of factors influencing lack of response in patients under Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP) protocol

Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the most prevailing, contagious, chronic and a morbid infection. Our country has a high burden of TB. According to 2015 WHO statistics, India alone accounts to 23% of the total global incidenc...

Diaphyseal aclasis : study of imaging pattern and associated deformities

Hereditary multiple exostosis, also known as Diaphyseal aclasis is characterised by development of multiple exostosis. We report two cases of diaphyseal aclasis who presented to the outpatient orthopaedics department of...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP611498
  • DOI -
  • Views 213
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

K Saneej, C Amarnath, TS Swaminathan (2018). Adequacy of completion of radiology request forms. Journal of the Indian Medical Association, 116(1), 6-8. https://www.europub.co.uk/articles/-A-611498