Are accident and emergency consultants as accurate as consultant radiologists in interpreting plain skeletal radiographs taken at a minor injury unit?

Assessing Referrals to a Trauma and Orthopaedic Department: Evaluation of a Traffic Light System for Virtual Fracture Clinic in the Emergency Department and Urgent Care

Background The Trauma and Orthopaedic (T&O) on-call service receives referrals from the emergency department (ED), general practice (GP) and urgent treatment centres (UTCs) and requests for inpatient reviews. The virtual fracture clinic (VFC) pathway allows ED and UTC clinicians to assess, discharge and refer when necessary. For VFC, the on-call orthopaedic consultant reviews the cases the next working day and makes an appropriate plan. This pathway consists of a traffic light system, in which practitioners can either safely discharge with written advice (green), refer to the VFC (yellow) or refer to the on-call team (red). Method The aim of this study was to assess how the VFC pathway was being utilised. All referrals to the T&O on-call team over three weeks were evaluated retrospectively. The following referrals were excluded: fractured femur, head injury, trauma calls and back pain pathway. The following data were collected: patient details, diagnosis, referral source, reason for referral, plan, double booking with VFC and appropriateness. Results A total of 191 referrals were analysed. Most referrals are from the ED (51%) and UTC (23%). Of the referrals, 39% were deemed to be inappropriate. Of the inappropriate referrals, 35% should have been referred directly to the VFC rather than the on-call team. A significant minority (7%) of inappropriate referrals were referred to the on-call team and VFC. Conclusion Education and collaboration are required with the ED and UTC to ensure the proper use of the VFC pathway. Immediate radiograph reporting may also be beneficial.

The accuracy of adult limb radiograph interpretation by emergency nurse practitioners: A prospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

One of the extensions to practice for the emergency nurse practitioner role is to appropriately order and interpret radiographs in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the accuracy in interpreting isolated adult limb radiographs between emergency nurse practitioners and emergency physicians.

DESIGN

A prospective comparative study was undertaken.

SETTING

Emergency department in a large metropolitan hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

200 adult patients with isolated limb injuries were consented.

METHODS

Six emergency nurse practitioners and ten emergency physicians participated. One emergency physician and emergency nurse practitioner independently clinically assessed each patient, determined the need for radiograph and separately recorded their interpretation of the radiograph as either definite fracture, no fracture or possible fracture. A single consultant radiologist reviewed each radiograph and their interpretation was seen as the gold standard. The sensitivity and specificity of emergency physicians and emergency nurse practitioners were calculated. To measure the level of agreement between the two-clinician groups, the weighted Kappa statistic was used.

RESULTS

The sensitivity for the emergency nurse practitioners was 91% and 88% for the emergency physicians. The specificity for the emergency nurse practitioners was 85% and for the emergency physicians 91%. The weighted Kappa on the presence of a fracture between the emergency nurse practitioners and emergency physicians was 0.83.

CONCLUSIONS

This study validates the clinical and diagnostic skills of emergency nurse practitioners assessed in the interpretation of isolated adult limb injury radiographs.

Accuracy of radiographers red dot or triage of accident and emergency radiographs in clinical practice: a systematic review

AIM

To determine the accuracy of radiographers red dot or triage of accident and emergency (A&E) radiographs in clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible studies assessed radiographers red dot or triage of A&E radiographs in clinical practice compared with a reference standard and provided accuracy data to construct 2 x 2 tables. Data were extracted on study eligibility and characteristics, quality, and accuracy. Pooled sensitivities and specificities and chi-square tests of heterogeneity were calculated.

RESULT

Three red dot and five triage studies were eligible for inclusion. Radiographers' red dot of A&E radiographs in clinical practice compared with a reference standard is 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-0.89] and 0.92 (0.91-0.93) sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Radiographers' triage of A&E radiographs of the skeleton is 0.90 (0.89-0.92) and 0.94 (0.93-0.94) sensitivity and specificity, respectively; and for chest and abdomen is 0.78 (0.74-0.82) and 0.91 (0.88-0.93). Radiographers' red dot of skeletal A&E radiographs without training is 0.71 (0.62-0.79) and 0.96 (0.93-0.97) sensitivity and specificity, respectively; and with training is 0.81 (0.72-0.87) and 0.95 (0.93-0.97). Pooled sensitivity and specificity for radiographers without training for the triage of skeletal A&E radiographs is 0.89 (0.88-0.91) and 0.93 (0.92-0.94); and with training is 0.91 (0.88-0.94) and 0.95 (0.93-0.96).

CONCLUSION

Radiographers red dot or triage of A&E radiographs in clinical practice is affected by body area, but not by training.