English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Aims Abdominal CT imaging is commonly used to assess the acute abdomen, and is relied upon by clinicians in decision making, often influencing the timeliness of intervention. Increased demand for CT imaging has led to departments out-sourcing reporting out of hours. The aim of this audit was to evaluate the concordance between emergency laparotomy findings and pre-operative CT reports. Methods 115 patients underwent emergency laparotomy with a pre-operative CT scan pertinent to the clinical episode (May 2019-October 2020). 2 surgical assessors independently assessed the CT reports and laparotomy findings to determine discrepancies. Using published audit standards, discrepancies were defined as major-felt to affect patient treatment- and further classified as false positive, false negative, misdiagnosis, indeterminate; or minor and unlikely to change course of patient care. Results 32/115 had discrepancies, 28/32 major (16/28 misdiagnosis, 4/28 false negative, 3/28 false positive, and 5/28 indeterminate). 71/115 reported by in house radiology. 19/71 discrepancies reported in house (16 major, 3 minor), 13/32 discrepancies reported by out of hours service (12 major, 1 minor). Relative risk of major discrepancies between in house radiology and out of hours service was 1.2 (p = 0.5). Conclusions Published audit standards are that CT reports should have &amp;gt;90% concordance with laparotomy findings; this audit found concordance in 76%. Further analysis comparing gastrointestinal vs. non-gastrointestinal specialist radiologist to assess the impact on concordance will be performed. We aim to explore the discrepancies, and seek to identify if our imaging and operating practices can be improved.

SP3.2.9 The concordance between emergency CT reporting in non-traumatic abdominal pain with surgical findings at laparotomy