Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Structured Reporting: An Intervention to Improve Procedure Documentation in Breast Imaging.
Floore, Tyann L; Kuzmiak, Cherie M; Lee, Sheila S; Rivers, Lana M; Eltilib, Mohamed Taj; Benefield, Thad; Jordan, Sheryl G.
Afiliación
  • Floore TL; University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Department of Radiology, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
  • Kuzmiak CM; University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Department of Radiology, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
  • Lee SS; University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Department of Radiology, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
  • Rivers LM; University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Department of Radiology, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
  • Eltilib MT; University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
  • Benefield T; University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Department of Radiology, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
  • Jordan SG; University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Department of Radiology, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
J Breast Imaging ; 4(6): 612-617, 2022 Dec 11.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38416997
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate intervention of structured reporting after wrong-site surgery that occurred after localization of an incorrect breast biopsy marker.

METHODS:

An IRB-exempt retrospective database review identified patients who underwent core-needle biopsy of a breast lesion from July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2020. They were divided into three cohorts 2014 pre-intervention/pre-sentinel, 2017 pre-intervention/post-sentinel, and 2019 post-intervention of structured reports. One hundred reports per cohort were reviewed for documentation of marker and shape. Statistical analysis was performed with mixed-effects logistic regression model and chi-squared test with P < 0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS:

The 2014 cohort consisted of 100 patients with 122 biopsies. Twenty-seven (22.1%) were excluded 5/122 (4.1%) lesion resolution, 22/122 (18.0%) no documentation whether marker was/was not placed. Of the 95 biopsies remaining, 4/95 (4.2%) had no marker placed, 62/95 (65.3%) reported marker only, and 29/95 (30.5%) reported marker and shape. In the 2017 cohort, 100 patients underwent 108 biopsies. Four/108 (3.7%) were excluded lesion resolution. Of the 104, 10/104 (9.6%) had no marker placed, 22/104 (21.2%) reported marker only, and 72/104 (69.2%) reported marker and shape. In the 2019 cohort, 100 patients underwent 114 biopsies. Two/114 (1.8%) were excluded lesion resolution. Of the 112, 3/112 (2.7%) had no marker placed, 3/112 (2.7%) reported marker only, and 106/112 (94.6%) reported marker and shape. The predicted probability of both marker placement and shape described were statistically greater for 2019 compared to the other cohorts (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION:

Using structured reports facilitates and improves documentation of breast biopsy markers and may potentially reduce the risk of medical errors.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Mama / Mamografía Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Breast Imaging Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Mama / Mamografía Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Breast Imaging Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos