Auditor recommendations resulting from three clinical audit rounds in Finnish radiology units

Background The purpose of clinical audits performed in radiology units is to reduce the radiation dose of patients and staff and to implement evidence-based best practices. Purpose To describe auditor recommendations in three Finnish clinical audit rounds performed in 2002–2014, and to determine if...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Acta radiologica (1987) 2017-06, Vol.58 (6), p.692-697
Hauptverfasser: Miettunen, Kirsi, Metsälä, Eija
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 697
container_issue 6
container_start_page 692
container_title Acta radiologica (1987)
container_volume 58
creator Miettunen, Kirsi
Metsälä, Eija
description Background The purpose of clinical audits performed in radiology units is to reduce the radiation dose of patients and staff and to implement evidence-based best practices. Purpose To describe auditor recommendations in three Finnish clinical audit rounds performed in 2002–2014, and to determine if auditor recommendations have had any impact on improving medical imaging practice. Material and Methods The retrospective observational study was performed in radiology units holding a radiation safety license issued by the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. The data comprised a systematic sample (n = 120) of auditor reports produced in three auditing rounds in these units during the years 2002–2014. The data were analyzed by descriptive methods and by using the Friedman two-way ANOVA test. Results The number of auditor recommendations given varied between clinical audit rounds and according to the type of imaging unit, as well as according to calculation method. Proportionally, the most recommendations in all three clinical audit rounds were given about defining and using quality assurance functions and about guidelines and practices for carrying out procedures involving radiation exposure. Demanding radiology units improved their practices more than basic imaging units towards the third round. Conclusion Auditor recommendations help to address the deficiencies in imaging practices. There is a need to develop uniform guidelines and to provide tutoring for clinical auditors in order to produce comparable clinical audit results.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0284185116666415
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1859736253</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0284185116666415</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1859736253</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-b5c0a999b0c87ae8bdb9a6381059576ae8b7d7e351d1fc8db71dd765a7346d523</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kDFPwzAQhS0EoqWwMyGPLAFfHNvJWFUUkCqxwIgix3ZbV4ld7HjovydRCwMSt5zu7r0n3YfQLZAHACEeSV4WUDIAPlQB7AxNgROSkYKxczQdz9l4n6CrGHeEQC4YXKJJLjgUhJdT9DlP2vY-4GCU7zrjtOytd3GYY2p76zZ4HXyH-20wBqvWOqtki-XowsEnpyO2Di-tczZucZDa-tZvDjg528drdLGWbTQ3pz5DH8un98VLtnp7fl3MV5miVPRZwxSRVVU1RJVCmrLRTSU5LYGwigk-boQWhjLQsFalbgRoLTiTghZcs5zO0P0xdx_8VzKxrzsblWlb6YxPsR4YVILynNFBSo5SFXyMwazrfbCdDIcaSD1Crf9CHSx3p_TUdEb_Gn4oDoLsKIhyY-qdT8EN3_4f-A0GLoAI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1859736253</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Auditor recommendations resulting from three clinical audit rounds in Finnish radiology units</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Miettunen, Kirsi ; Metsälä, Eija</creator><creatorcontrib>Miettunen, Kirsi ; Metsälä, Eija</creatorcontrib><description>Background The purpose of clinical audits performed in radiology units is to reduce the radiation dose of patients and staff and to implement evidence-based best practices. Purpose To describe auditor recommendations in three Finnish clinical audit rounds performed in 2002–2014, and to determine if auditor recommendations have had any impact on improving medical imaging practice. Material and Methods The retrospective observational study was performed in radiology units holding a radiation safety license issued by the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. The data comprised a systematic sample (n = 120) of auditor reports produced in three auditing rounds in these units during the years 2002–2014. The data were analyzed by descriptive methods and by using the Friedman two-way ANOVA test. Results The number of auditor recommendations given varied between clinical audit rounds and according to the type of imaging unit, as well as according to calculation method. Proportionally, the most recommendations in all three clinical audit rounds were given about defining and using quality assurance functions and about guidelines and practices for carrying out procedures involving radiation exposure. Demanding radiology units improved their practices more than basic imaging units towards the third round. Conclusion Auditor recommendations help to address the deficiencies in imaging practices. There is a need to develop uniform guidelines and to provide tutoring for clinical auditors in order to produce comparable clinical audit results.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0284-1851</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0455</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0284185116666415</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27614068</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Clinical Audit ; Diagnostic Imaging ; Finland ; Humans ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Radiation Dosage ; Retrospective Studies</subject><ispartof>Acta radiologica (1987), 2017-06, Vol.58 (6), p.692-697</ispartof><rights>The Foundation Acta Radiologica 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-b5c0a999b0c87ae8bdb9a6381059576ae8b7d7e351d1fc8db71dd765a7346d523</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-b5c0a999b0c87ae8bdb9a6381059576ae8b7d7e351d1fc8db71dd765a7346d523</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0284185116666415$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0284185116666415$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27614068$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Miettunen, Kirsi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Metsälä, Eija</creatorcontrib><title>Auditor recommendations resulting from three clinical audit rounds in Finnish radiology units</title><title>Acta radiologica (1987)</title><addtitle>Acta Radiol</addtitle><description>Background The purpose of clinical audits performed in radiology units is to reduce the radiation dose of patients and staff and to implement evidence-based best practices. Purpose To describe auditor recommendations in three Finnish clinical audit rounds performed in 2002–2014, and to determine if auditor recommendations have had any impact on improving medical imaging practice. Material and Methods The retrospective observational study was performed in radiology units holding a radiation safety license issued by the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. The data comprised a systematic sample (n = 120) of auditor reports produced in three auditing rounds in these units during the years 2002–2014. The data were analyzed by descriptive methods and by using the Friedman two-way ANOVA test. Results The number of auditor recommendations given varied between clinical audit rounds and according to the type of imaging unit, as well as according to calculation method. Proportionally, the most recommendations in all three clinical audit rounds were given about defining and using quality assurance functions and about guidelines and practices for carrying out procedures involving radiation exposure. Demanding radiology units improved their practices more than basic imaging units towards the third round. Conclusion Auditor recommendations help to address the deficiencies in imaging practices. There is a need to develop uniform guidelines and to provide tutoring for clinical auditors in order to produce comparable clinical audit results.</description><subject>Clinical Audit</subject><subject>Diagnostic Imaging</subject><subject>Finland</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Radiation Dosage</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><issn>0284-1851</issn><issn>1600-0455</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kDFPwzAQhS0EoqWwMyGPLAFfHNvJWFUUkCqxwIgix3ZbV4ld7HjovydRCwMSt5zu7r0n3YfQLZAHACEeSV4WUDIAPlQB7AxNgROSkYKxczQdz9l4n6CrGHeEQC4YXKJJLjgUhJdT9DlP2vY-4GCU7zrjtOytd3GYY2p76zZ4HXyH-20wBqvWOqtki-XowsEnpyO2Di-tczZucZDa-tZvDjg528drdLGWbTQ3pz5DH8un98VLtnp7fl3MV5miVPRZwxSRVVU1RJVCmrLRTSU5LYGwigk-boQWhjLQsFalbgRoLTiTghZcs5zO0P0xdx_8VzKxrzsblWlb6YxPsR4YVILynNFBSo5SFXyMwazrfbCdDIcaSD1Crf9CHSx3p_TUdEb_Gn4oDoLsKIhyY-qdT8EN3_4f-A0GLoAI</recordid><startdate>201706</startdate><enddate>201706</enddate><creator>Miettunen, Kirsi</creator><creator>Metsälä, Eija</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201706</creationdate><title>Auditor recommendations resulting from three clinical audit rounds in Finnish radiology units</title><author>Miettunen, Kirsi ; Metsälä, Eija</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-b5c0a999b0c87ae8bdb9a6381059576ae8b7d7e351d1fc8db71dd765a7346d523</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Clinical Audit</topic><topic>Diagnostic Imaging</topic><topic>Finland</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Radiation Dosage</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Miettunen, Kirsi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Metsälä, Eija</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Acta radiologica (1987)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Miettunen, Kirsi</au><au>Metsälä, Eija</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Auditor recommendations resulting from three clinical audit rounds in Finnish radiology units</atitle><jtitle>Acta radiologica (1987)</jtitle><addtitle>Acta Radiol</addtitle><date>2017-06</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>58</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>692</spage><epage>697</epage><pages>692-697</pages><issn>0284-1851</issn><eissn>1600-0455</eissn><abstract>Background The purpose of clinical audits performed in radiology units is to reduce the radiation dose of patients and staff and to implement evidence-based best practices. Purpose To describe auditor recommendations in three Finnish clinical audit rounds performed in 2002–2014, and to determine if auditor recommendations have had any impact on improving medical imaging practice. Material and Methods The retrospective observational study was performed in radiology units holding a radiation safety license issued by the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. The data comprised a systematic sample (n = 120) of auditor reports produced in three auditing rounds in these units during the years 2002–2014. The data were analyzed by descriptive methods and by using the Friedman two-way ANOVA test. Results The number of auditor recommendations given varied between clinical audit rounds and according to the type of imaging unit, as well as according to calculation method. Proportionally, the most recommendations in all three clinical audit rounds were given about defining and using quality assurance functions and about guidelines and practices for carrying out procedures involving radiation exposure. Demanding radiology units improved their practices more than basic imaging units towards the third round. Conclusion Auditor recommendations help to address the deficiencies in imaging practices. There is a need to develop uniform guidelines and to provide tutoring for clinical auditors in order to produce comparable clinical audit results.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>27614068</pmid><doi>10.1177/0284185116666415</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0284-1851
ispartof Acta radiologica (1987), 2017-06, Vol.58 (6), p.692-697
issn 0284-1851
1600-0455
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1859736253
source Access via SAGE; MEDLINE
subjects Clinical Audit
Diagnostic Imaging
Finland
Humans
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Radiation Dosage
Retrospective Studies
title Auditor recommendations resulting from three clinical audit rounds in Finnish radiology units
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T15%3A18%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Auditor%20recommendations%20resulting%20from%20three%20clinical%20audit%20rounds%20in%20Finnish%20radiology%20units&rft.jtitle=Acta%20radiologica%20(1987)&rft.au=Miettunen,%20Kirsi&rft.date=2017-06&rft.volume=58&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=692&rft.epage=697&rft.pages=692-697&rft.issn=0284-1851&rft.eissn=1600-0455&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0284185116666415&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1859736253%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1859736253&rft_id=info:pmid/27614068&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0284185116666415&rfr_iscdi=true