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

Pelvic radiography is a frequent investigation. European guidelines aim to ensure appropriate use and adequate quality. When initial images are inadequate, repeat radiographs are often required, which may have significant patient safety and economic implications. Objectives The study aimed to assess the adequacy of pelvic imaging across three orthopaedic centres, to identify causes for inadequate imaging and to establish the cost of inadequate imaging from financial and patient safety perspectives. Methods Pelvic radiographs were identified on Picture Archiving and Communication System software at three UK hospitals. Radiographs were assessed against European guidelines and indications for repeat imaging were analysed. Results A total of 1,531 sequential pelvic radiographs were reviewed. The mean age of patients was 60 years (range 5 months to 101 years). Of this total, 51.9% of images were suboptimal, with no significant difference across the three hospitals (P &gt; 0.05). Hospital 3 repeated radiographs in 6.3% of cases, compare with 18.1% and 19.7% at hospitals 1 and 2, respectively (P &gt; 0.05). Hospital 3 identified pathology missed on the initial radiograph in 1% of cases, compared with 5.4% and 5.5% at hospitals 1 and 2, respectively (P &gt; 0.05). Out-of-hours imaging is associated with a higher rate of suboptimal quality (69.1%) compared with normal working hours (51.3%; P = 0.006). Adequacy rates vary with age (χ 2 = 43.62, P &lt; 0.001). Risk of having a suboptimal radiograph increases above the age of 60-years (χ 2 = 4.45, P &lt; 0.05). The annual cost of repeat radiographs was £56,200 per hospital. Discussion and conclusion High rates of pelvic radiograph inadequacy can lead to missed pathology and the requirement for repeat imaging, which has significant patient safety and financial implications. Risk factors for inadequate radiographs include older patients and those having out-of-hours imaging.

Inadequate pelvic radiographs: implications of not getting it right the first time