« Back
Ultrasound Alert System Audit Cycle ( Audit & Re-Audit)
Poster Title: Ultrasound Alert System Audit Cycle ( Audit & Re-Audit)
Submitted on 13 Oct 2020
Author(s): Awab Ali, Gary Wiscombe
Affiliations: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
Poster Views: 74
View poster »

Poster Information
Abstract: Objective: This is a retrospective analysis of a randomised subset of ultrasound reports. This audit cycle (Audit&Re-audit) was undertaken as a result of a recent omitted ‘Alert’ in an ultrasound report resulting in delay of treatment to a patient. Local guidelines state the reporting sonographer should place an ‘Alert’ on any report they author which shows findings that may change/influence patient's management. These alerts are picked up by the admin team who feedback the details of the report to the referring clinician.

Method: In the first audit, using a built-in randomised algorithm within Excel a random sample of 200 ultrasound reports was taken from 01/01/2019 to 28/02/2019. The clinical details and ultrasound reports were reviewed. In the second audit (re-audit) the same method was used and 200 ultrasound reports were taken from 01/01/2020 to 28/02/2020.

Results: In original audit, 95.5% of reports were correctly processed, 4.5% of reports had significant findings but no alert placed. After discussion with the Sonographers and adding a short code to the ultrasound report to improve the standardisation of the alerts, results of re-audit show 98.5% of reports were correctly processed, 1.5% of reports had significant findings but no alert placed.

Conclusion: This audit cycle measured the ability to highlight any urgent/significant findings found in ultrasound scans which needs urgent attention by the referring clinician in a timely manner to avoid any delay in treatment. By acting on the results of the first audit, we managed to improve patient care by introducing a fail-safe.
Summary: This Audit cycle falls under patient safety domain by introducing/augmenting a fail-safe in reporting significant/urgent findings in USS.References: • Callen J, Georgiou A, Li J et al (2011). ‘The safety implications of missed test results for hospitalized patients: a systematic review’. BMJ Qual Saf;
20: 194-199
• Callen J, Westbrook JI, Georgiou et al (2011). ‘Failure to follow-up Test Results for Ambulatory Patients: A systematic review’. J Gen Intern Med;
27(10): 1334-48
• Kripalani S LeFevre F, Phillips CO et al (2007). ‘Deficits in Communication and Information between Hospital-Based and Primary Care
Physicians’. JAMA; 297: 831-841
Report abuse »
Ask the author a question about this poster.
Ask a Question »

Creative Commons

Related Posters

Audit of post processing of CT brain scans performed for dementia workup
Weiken Tan, Helena Birch, Helen Cliffe, Mark Igra

A survey study investigating perceptions and acceptance of the whole-body imaging techniques used for the diagnosis of myeloma
A. Ryder, C. Parsons, B. Greaney, C. E. Hutchinson, C. D. Thake

Immunity Buster Herbal Plant : During Covid-19 Pandemic
Devanand Dongre, Om Kharde, Prafulla Tathe

Cauda Equina Syndrome Audit: A DGH Perspective and Review
Sachin Bhardwaj (SHO), Joseph Ofran (Radiographer), Oran Roche (Consultant Radiologist), Dario Prudencio (MR Superintendent)

Prostate Cancer and Sarcoma: Challenges of Synchronous Malignancies
Dr. Ali Shah, Dr. Luqman Wali, Dr. Fahd Husain, Dr. Sharmarke Ali