Abstract Background Abdominal X-rays (AXRs) were a key part of investigating acute abdominal pain prior to the advent of CT imaging. With increasing reliance on CT scanning, the utilisation and therefore reliance on the interpretation of AXRs has reduced. We investigate the concordance rates of interpretations of AXRs with the formal radiological report, along with the time taken for formal reporting. Aim To ascertain the concordance rates of interpretation of emergency AXRs with formal radiological reporting. Method All AXRs performed within the trust in a 15-day period were obtained retrospectively from our electronic imaging database. These were compared with the initial interpretations of the AXR, which was obtained from our electronic record system. Results 248 AXRs were performed, 136 (55%) were not interpreted in the notes. Of the remaining 112, 88 (79%) of AXR interpretations were in concordance with radiological reporting. There was no difference in concordance rates between interpretation by the Emergency Department (ED) or ward-based doctors. The average time for AXRs to be reported was 1.5 days for ED, and 3 for inpatients. Conclusions One fifth of AXRs were incorrectly interpreted and more than half of AXRs were not interpreted at all. This brings into question not only their usefulness in general, but also the utilisation of resources to perform them. As all AXRs are reviewed by a consultant radiologist with little impact on decision making, does this still remain an effective utilisation of resources?
Read full abstract