Clinical compliance of viewing conditions in radiology reporting environments against current guidelines and standards

Several studies have demonstrated the importance of environmental conditions in the radiology reporting environment, with many indicating that incorrect parameters could lead to error and misinterpretation. Literature is available with recommendations as to the levels that should be achieved in clinical practice, but evidence of adherence to these guidelines in radiology reporting environments is absent. This study audited the reporting environments of four teleradiologist and eight hospital based radiology reporting areas. This audit aimed to quantify adherence to guidelines and identify differences in the locations with respect to layout and design, monitor distance and angle as well as the ambient factors of the reporting environments. In line with international recommendations, an audit tool was designed to enquire in relation to the layout and design of reporting environments, monitor angle and distances used by radiologists when reporting, as well as the ambient factors such as noise, light and temperature. The review of conditions were carried out by the same independent auditor for consistency. The results obtained were compared against international standards and current research. Each radiology environment was given an overall compliance score to establish whether or not their environments were in line with recommended guidelines. Poor compliance to international recommendations and standards among radiology reporting environments was identified. Teleradiology reporting environments demonstrated greater compliance than hospital environments. The findings of this study identified a need for greater awareness of environmental and perceptual issues in the clinical setting. Further work involving a larger number of clinical centres is recommended.

[1]  Graeme MacLennan,et al.  Attributes of clinical recommendations that influence change in practice following audit and feedback. , 2002, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  P R Goddard,et al.  Ergonomics of digital imaging. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[3]  Elizabeth A Krupinski,et al.  Current perspectives in medical image perception , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[4]  Luca Brunese,et al.  Learning from errors in radiology: a comprehensive review. , 2012, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[5]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. , 2005, Medical physics.

[6]  J. Foley An audit of the implementation of guidelines in relation to the prevention of dental caries. , 2003, The surgeon : journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland.

[7]  Rachel Toomey,et al.  The impact of acoustic noise found within clinical departments on radiology performance. , 2008, Academic radiology.

[8]  P C Brennan,et al.  Assessment of monitor conditions for the display of radiological diagnostic images and ambient lighting. , 2004, The British journal of radiology.

[9]  Xin Qian IAEA Human Health Series No. 4, Comprehensive Clinical Audits of Diagnostic Radiology Practices: A Tool for Quality Improvement , 2011 .

[10]  K. Chandrasekar WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE IN PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANISATIONS , 2011 .

[11]  Quality assurance: the missing link. , 2006, Radiology.

[12]  Mark F. McEntee,et al.  Ambient temperature variation affects radiological diagnostic performance , 2009, Medical Imaging.

[13]  David J Manning,et al.  Ambient lighting: effect of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wrist. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.