Elsingergy MM, Carlsson T, Andronikou S. Evaluation of quality of renal tract ultrasound scans and reports performed in children with first urinary tract infection.
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2021;
53:65-74. [PMID:
34893454 DOI:
10.1016/j.jmir.2021.11.006]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2021] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE
To determine the quality of renal tract ultrasound (US) imaging records performed in children for evaluation of urinary tract infection (UTI) by multiple professionals with different levels of experience in a dedicated academic children's hospital.
METHODS
Retrospective analysis of US images and reports for children ≤ 13-years with first presentation of a UTI. 9 Operators (6 consultant radiologists and 3 sonographers) were anonymised and the adequacy of their US images and reports were evaluated for the following categories; Image acquisition, Image labelling, Metric labelling, and Final reporting. The frequency of the reporting quality of the elements assessed was compared between radiologists and sonographers using Chi-square or fisher exact test.
RESULTS
Renal tract US studies for 100 children (20 males, 80 females) with first UTI episode were assessed. Mean age was 4.5 ± 3.4 years. 54% of the studies were performed by sonographers and 46% by radiologists. Kidneys and pre-micturition bladder scans were acquired in more than 96% of exams by both sonographers and radiologists. Kidney image and metric labelling was adequate in almost all exams (98-100%) with the exception of plane labelling which was not routinely done by US operators (less than 3%). Sonographers performed consistently better than radiologists in post-micturition bladder scanning, pre- and post-micturition bladder labelling and renal length reporting (p<0.05). Least to be recorded by US operators (both radiologists and sonographers) were doppler scan acquisitions (less than 3%), bladder wall thickness labelling (less than 3%), and renal calculi reporting (less than 1%).
CONCLUSION
The inconsistency of the reporting quality between the different elements assessed highlights the difference in US training and experience received by sonographers and radiologists. A pro-forma structured reporting template may ensure US operators provide consistent, thorough and good quality ultrasound images and reports.
Collapse