Authors: Morris-Stiff, G.¹; Stiff, R.E.¹; Morris-Stiff, H.²

Source: Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, Volume 88, Number 3, May 2006 , pp. 270-274(5)

Publisher: The Royal College of Surgeons of England

Abstract:

INTRODUCTION: The biannual turnover of house surgeons has long been dreaded by paramedical staff because of fears of increased workloads generated by 'untrained' junior doctors. The aim of this study was to address this issue by examining both the quantity and quality of requests made for emergency abdominal radiographs made by 'experienced' house surgeons during the month of July and by the 'novices' during August.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: All adult patients undergoing abdominal radiography (AXR) following admission as emergencies via the surgical directorate with abdominal signs were identified prospectively. The reports of the AXRs were reviewed to determine the total number of requests and the number of positive findings for the two groups. In addition, the hand-written request forms were recovered to determine the suitability of the requests according to nationally-accepted guidelines produced by the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR).

RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 252 radiographs were performed consisting of 98 in July and 154 in August. The number of unreported films in each month were similar at 11 (11.2%) and 16 (10.4%), respectively, leaving 87 reported radiographs in July and 138 in August. There was no difference in the number of radiographs with positive findings (excluding degenerative spinal disease) for July (n = 19; 22%) and August (n = 33; 24%). Of the 225 reported films, RCR guidelines were followed in only 73 (32%) of 225 cases. When guidelines were adhered to, positive findings were identified in 56 (76.7%) of 73 cases whereas when guidelines were not followed positive findings were seen in only 13/139 (8.9%) of AXRs.

CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that the popular myth of the 'August syndrome' is unsubstantiated at least using the surrogate marker of abdominal radiograph requests. The worrying finding of a high number of unacceptable indications for the performance of abdominal radiographs deserves urgent attention both in terms of its financial implications and with regards reducing radiation exposure. A programme of education is proposed to emphasise the RCR guidelines with re-audit to assess adherence to the guidelines.

References: 10 references open in new window

Articles that cite this article?

Keywords: ABDOMINAL RADIOGRAPH; GUIDELINES; ACUTE ABDOMINAL PAIN

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/003588406X98586

Affiliations: 1: Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK 2: Department of Radiography, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK

Publication date: 2006-05-01

More about this publication?

• The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England is the official journal of the College and is published eight times a year in January, March, April, May, July, September, October and November. The main aim of the journal is to publish high quality, peer-reviewed papers that relate to all branches of surgery.
  
  The Annals also includes letters and comments, a regular technical section, NICE news, controversial topics, CORESS feedback, book reviews and the best trainee presentations from England and Wales. The editorial board is composed of members of the College Council and experts from across the surgical specialties.
  
  Archive issues of the Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England are available via the PubMed Central database
  
  To view articles that have been published online ahead of print please click here
• Information for Authors
• Subscribe to this Title
• Information for Advertisers
• The journals of importance to UK clinicians - Survey
• ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites

Related content

• In this: publication
• By this: publisher
• In this Subject: Medicine ,  Surgery ,  Education
• By this author: Morris-Stiff, G. ;  Stiff, R.E. ;  Morris-Stiff, H.

Website © Publishing Technology. Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article.

• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy
• Information for advertisers