29 and one radiologist (+one vacancy) working on the only radiological department. We serve a population of 28,600 which is three doubled during a tourist season. There are 20 ferry and cruising ship arrivals a day in the island and quite often sick and injured travelers are taken care of in our hospital. Swedish language is also a special feature. Transportation and weather are challenges as well as recruiting personnel to the department. We perform more than 17,500 conventional, CT, US, MRI and mammography examinations a year, and of course mammography screening. Patients come from all categories and all ages. Our group works well together and has a great sense of responsibility. Radiologist is not usually available outside of working hours but we frequently co-operate with university hospitals in Turku, Helsinki and Uppsala in Sweden. We work on quality issues and send personnel to courses both in Finland and Sweden. Next clinical audit will be carried out in 2015. Results: In this short presentation I will take you to a tour on Åland Islands and share of experiences as a radiographer on an island. 8.19. Radiographer´s role of the procurement process of the digital imaging system Presenter: Tuomas Hukkanen, HUS Medical Imaging Center, Administration / Procurement Unit, Finland Author: Tuomas Hukkanen Introduction: When purchasing equipment to an x-ray department, there are typically many different professionals involved in the procurement process. Main users of equipment are always needed when comparing offered equipment and making the final decision, so a radiographer plays an important role concerning to procurement process of digital radiographic system. The best way to utilize radiographer´s expertise is to increase his/her own awareness of the role and influence of radiographer in the procurement process. This can be best accomplished when radiographer is well aware of the progress of the procurement process and of the tasks, rights and responsibilities involved. The aim of this thesis is to increase radiographers knowledge of their role and influence in the procurement process of digital radiographic system, so that radiographers expertise may be best utilized during the acquisition. Methods: The data was collected using theme interview with three employees of procurement unit and focus group interview with participants (N=9) having expertise in procurement process of digital radiographic system. They were analyzed by content analysis. Results: According to results a radiographer has an important role in the procurement process of a digital radiographic system including several tasks during the process. A radiographer has bigger role in the procurement process of digital radiographic system than in that of the other imaging methods. To minimize risks and to ensure the high quality of the acquisition a radiographer´s active participation in the procurement is necessary. 8.20. John Thomas Sign: what does it stand for? Presenter: Man Lok Chan, Uniradiology, Australia Authors: ML Chan, A Steward Introduction: The John Thomas sign is a legendary myth in the world of radiography. It is defined as a prominent soft tissue radiological sign seen on an AP pelvis radiographic image, but its clinical application is restricted to male patients only. It was believed that the John Thomas sign could indicate any pathology underlining in the pelvis or hips. Nonetheless, there were limited literature and research studies discussed on the truthfulness of this sign. Methods: A retrospective study was performed to examine the sensitivity of John Thomas sign to indicate a hip fracture in an emergency setting in a large public hospital in Melbourne, Australia over a period of 6 months. Results: It was found that the sensitivity of John Thomas sign is 19% and the positive predictive value is 12%. Therefore, John Thomas sign is not a reliable radiological sign to identify a hip fracture. Furthermore, this research project provides a deeper understanding of the mechanism of male reproductive organ in order to uncover the mystery of the John Thomas sign. 8.21. Validity of self-reports of fractures in postmenopausal women Presenter: Liisa Ollikainen-Paananen, Bone and Cartilage Research Unit/UEF, Finland Authors: Liisa Ollikainen-Paananen & Risto Honkanen Introduction: Postal survey is a feasible way to collect health information for epidemiological research. However, concern has been expressed about the validity of self-reported information gathered from the participants. Earlier studies on the validity of self-reporting have usually investigated issues such as chronic illnesses or female reproductive history. Some of these studies also include a review of fractures; these studies indicate both accurate reporting and underreporting of fractures. The accuracy of selfreports of fractures has previously been studied in greater detail by the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, which found that self-reports by elderly women included 11 percent false positives of all fracture reports in postal surveys, whereas in phone interviews they remembered all the fractures they had sustained during the previous four months. We examined the validity of self-reports of fractures in a postal inquiry to postmenopausal women by using the data of the Kuopio Osteoporosis Risk Factor and Prevention Study (OSTPRE). The survey was sent to all the 11220 women aged 67-76 years and resident in Eastern Finland, in 2009. The fracture questionnaire of the survey included information about the site, year, and mechanism of past fractures in 2004-2009. A total of 9096 women (79, 6 percent) responded to the survey. Methods: Validity of self-reports was examined by comparing responses to the fracture question on the survey with the participant´s medical records in RIS-PACS -information system among members of fractures and control groups. Results: Validity of self-reports of past fractures in a postal inquiry to postmenopausal women is not perfect: both over- and underreporting do occur. However, self-report of major fractures such as wrist fracture is relatively accurate. On the other hand, minor fractures rather often remain unreported, if the reporting period is several years 8.22. From EURATOM treaty to EU guidelines: Clinical Audit RP 159 Presenter: Päivi Wood, Society of Radiographers in Finland Authors: Päivi Wood Introduction: The EC directive 97/43/EURATOM introduced the concept of Clinical Audit for the assessment of radiological practices. The Member States were required to implement clinical audits in accordance with national procedures. This concept is of high importance for the improvement of the quality of imaging practices. In the past years the implementation of clinical audits has been commenced in a number of varying “national procedures”. Need for guidance was obvious to achieve meaningful results. European Guidelines were published in 2009. The EC guideline is to provide guidance on clinical auditing in order to improve implementation of Article 6.4 of Council Directive 97/43/ EURATOM. The guideline provides comprehensive information on existing procedures and criteria for clinical audit in radiological practices: diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy. Clinical audit is not research, quality system audits nor regulatory inspections and it is systematic and planned activity. Clinical audit is a systematic review of medical radiological procedures which seeks to improve the quality and the outcome of patient care through structured review. Clinical audit should be a multidisciplinary, multi-professional activity. Follow general accepted rules and standards which are based on international, national or local legal regulations, or on guidelines developed by international, national or local medical and clinical professional societies. Methods: A short history of clinical audits and experiences Conclusions: Clinical audit should address the practical clinical work by professionals and assess the local practice against the defined good practice. It should cover the whole clinical pathway in radiological practices, but it can also be partial but should eventually become comprehensive. Clinical audit should address the three main elements: structure, process and outcome. And finally all parties involved in the process must respect confidentiality.
ISRRT | Book Of Abstracts
To see the actual publication please follow the link above