Diş Hekimlerinin Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi Raporlarına Yönelik Algı ve Tutumları

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 4, 379 - 386, 30.12.2018

Melih Özdede İlkay Peker Bülent Altunkaynak Özlem Üçok

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.414128

Cited By: 1

Öz

Amaç:
Radyoloji
raporları klinisyen ve radyolog arasındaki en önemli iletişim yöntemidir. Diş
hekimliği radyolojisinde, konik-ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT)
raporlaması yeni bir konudur. Bu çalışmanın amacı, KIBT raporlarından diş
hekimlerinin memnuniyet ve beklentilerini değerlendirmek, aynı zamanda KIBT
raporlarının kalitesinde iyileştirmeye  ve raporların standardizasyonuna katkıda
bulunmaktır.

Gereç
ve Yöntem: Diş
hekimleri hazırlanan ankete e-posta yoluyla davet edildi. Katılımcılar,
demografik bilgilerini ve KIBT raporlarıyla ilgili 14 sorudan oluşan bir anketi
doldurdu. Cinsiyet, yaş, unvan, çalıştığı kurum ve branşlara göre verilen
cevaplar analiz edilerek ki-kare testiyle karşılaştırıldı.

Bulgular: Çalışmaya toplam 185 diş hekimi (97
kadın ve 88 erkek) katıldı. Katılımcılar, raporların yeterlilik düzeyinin
çoğunlukla orta düzeyde (% 47) olduğunu ve yeterli raporların kaynağının
üniversite hastaneleri olduğunu belirtmiştir (% 49,2). Çoğu diş hekimi (% 57)
klinik uygulamalarda yarı zamanlı olarak bir radyoloji uzmanına ihtiyaç
duyduklarını bildirmiştir. Yeterli olarak görülen raporların kaynağı ile
katılımcıların cinsiyetleri, yaş grupları, unvanları ve branşları arasında
ilgili istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark vardı (p <0.05).

Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sonuçları, diş
hekimlerinin çoğunun KIBT raporlarının yeterliliğinden memnun olmadıklarını
göstermiştir. Ankete katılanların yarısından fazlası, radyoloji raporlarının
“okunmamasının” kendilerine yasal sorumluluk doğurabileceğini düşünmüştür. Çoğu
diş hekimi, hastaları incelemelerinden önce ve sonra radyoloji uzmanına
danışmak istemiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

KIBT, Radyoloji, Rapor

The Perceptions and Attitudes of Dentists Towards Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Reports

Öz

Objectives: Radiology reports are the most important method of
communication between the clinician and the radiologist. In dentomaxillofacial
radiology, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) reporting is a new subject. The
purpose of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction and expectations of
dentists from CBCT reporting as well as contributing to standardization and improvement
in the quality of CBCT reports.

Materials and Methods: Dentists were invited to participate in the survey by
e-mail. The participants filled out a survey with their demographic data and
responded to 14 questions regarding CBCT reports. The responses regarding
gender, age, title, institution, and department were analysed and compared with
chi-square tests.

Results: In total, 185 dentists (97 females and 88 males) participated in the
study. Participants reported that the adequacy level of the reports were mostly
moderate (47%) and that the source of adequate reports was university hospitals
(49.2%). Most dentists (57%) reported that they needed a consultant radiologist
in clinical practice on a part time basis. There was a statistically
significant difference (p<0.05) between participants’ genders, age groups, titles,
and departments regarding the source of the adequate reports.

Conclusions: The results of this study showed that most of the
dentists were not satisfied about the proficiency of CBCT reports. More than
half of those surveyed thought that “not reading” the radiology reports might
give them a legal liability. Most dentists wanted to consult with the
radiologist before and after patient examinations. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

CBCT, Radiology, Report

Kaynakça

• 1) Dogan N, Varlibas ZN, Erpolat OP. Radiological report: expectations of clinicians. Diagn Interv Radiol 2010;16:179–185.
• 2) Summers JB, Kaminski J. Reporting instruction for radiology residents. Acad Radiol 2004;11:1197.
• 3) Friedman PJ. Radiologic reporting: structure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1983;140:171–172.
• 4) Berlin L. Radiology reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:943–946.
• 5) Kahn CE Jr, Langlotz CP, Burnside ES, et al. Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology 2009;252:852–856.
• 6) Turkish Society of Radiology Qualification Board, Standards and Guide Committee, Traditional Radiology Report Written Guideline Document No. 001:2008.
• 7) Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL. Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist's perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4:313-319.
• 8) Gunderman R, Ambrosius WT, Cohen M. Radiology reporting in an academic children’s hospital: what referring physicians think. Pediatr Radiol 2000;30:307-314.
• 9) Smith PC, Rodrigo AG, Bublitz C, et al. Missing clinical information during primary care visit. JAMA 2005;293:565-571.
• 10) Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Knight N. The evolution of the radiology report and the development of speech recognition. In: Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Weiss DL. Electronic reporting in the digital medical enterprise. Great Falls, VA: Society for Computer Applications in Radiology, 2003:1-7.
• 11) European Society of Radiology (ESR). Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights Into Imaging 2011;2:93-96.
• 12) Srinivasa Babu A, Brooks ML. The malpractice liability of radiology reports: minimizing the risk. Radiographics 2015;35:547-554.
• 13) Dunnick NR, Langlotz CP. The radiology report of the future: a summary of the 2007 Intersociety Conference. J Am Coll Radiol 2008;5:626-629.
• 14) Yesildere FB, Eren CS, Oren E, Erdogan N. Assesment of the clinicians’ expectations from the radiology reports and overall satisfaction with the radiology department in our hospital. Tepecik Egit Hast Derg 2010;20:131-141.
• 15) Bosmans JM, Schrans D, Avonts D, De Maeseneer JM. Communication between general practitioners and radiologists: opinions, experience, promises, pitfalls. JBR-BTR 2014;97:325-330.
• 16) DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Pub, 2014:11-12.
• 17) Sistrom C, Lanier L, Mancuso A. Reporting instruction for radiology residents. Acad Radiol 2004;11:76-84.
• 18) Howl-Whitney LJ. Radiology reports: are structured systems the answer? RSNA 2013. Diagnostic Imaging, Practice Management [serial on the Internet]. 2013 Dec 10. Available from: http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/rsna-2013/radiology-reports-are-structured-systems- answer.
• 19) McLoughlin RF, So CB, Gray RR, Brandt R. Radiology reports: how much descriptive detail is enough? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:803-806.
• 20) Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:591-598.
• 21) Plumb AA, Grieve FM, Khan SH. Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 2009;64:386-396.