Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Ilagan

Publications and source records attributed to M Ilagan.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

How gastroenterologists inform patients of results after lower endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about how gastroenterologists communicate endoscopic findings and biopsy results to their patients. We sought to determine the factors that may influence this behavior. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was developed and mailed to the 80 members of the Delaware Valley Society for GI Endoscopy. Information was obtained on the demographic characteristics and responses to six case vignettes prepared to examine communication patterns. We determined possible influences of conscious sedation and the benignity or severity of findings on communication practices. RESULTS: Sixty-one surveys (76%) were completed and analyzed. Endoscopists immediately inform patients of normal results. For abnormal results, 92% would immediately inform nonsedated patients versus 79% that would inform sedated patients (p < 0.008). Analysis of responses to the case vignettes indicated that 82% of endoscopists would immediately reassure the patient about a benign appearing (< 1 cm) polyp, but only 70% would do so for a polyp > 2 cm (p < 0.01). In contrast, when presented with a frank malignancy, 94% would inform the patient. Eighty-four percent of endoscopists would telephone results of a benign pathology report, but only 34% would telephone report a dysplastic lesion (p < 0.001). There was no correlation between the response rate and various demographic parameters such as physician age, type of, or length of time in practice. CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterologists usually report normal findings immediately, but are less likely to do so after use of sedation or encountering abnormal findings. Most of those surveyed would use the telephone to communicate abnormal findings.

Adult↗

Picture archiving communication system does not decrease the number of radiographs needed to evaluate the trauma patient.

BACKGROUND: Picture Archiving Communication System (PACS) is a sophisticated software and hardware package that enables clinicians to retrieve, review, and digitally manipulate radiographs from computer workstations throughout the hospital. PACS was instituted at Brooke Army Medical Center in July 1993. METHODS: Fifty consecutive trauma and 50 consecutive motor vehicle crash (MVC) trauma admissions to an urban trauma center were reviewed before PACS (January 1993) and 18 months after PACS was instituted (January 1995). Patients were compared by the number of radiographs needed during the initial evaluation by type and total. The trauma groups were subdivided by mechanism and also compared. Demographic and physiologic data were collected for each patient. RESULTS: There are no differences in the demographic and physiologic data between groups. For the 50 consecutive trauma admissions, only two areas of statistical difference were found: more chest films were obtained in the MVC PACS group and more pelvis films were obtained in the gunshot wound pre-PACS group. For the 50 consecutive MVC trauma admissions, the PACS group had more chest and total radiographs per patient than the pre-PACS group. More computed tomographic scans of the neck were obtained in the PACS group. CONCLUSION: PACS did not decrease the number of radiographs needed to adequately and fully evaluate the trauma patient.

Accidents, Traffic↗