Neuroradiology Critical Findings Lists: Survey of Neuroradiology Training Programs

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Joint Commission has identified timely reporting of critical results as one of the National Patient Safety Goals. We surveyed directors of neuroradiology fellowships to assess and compare critical findings lists across programs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-question survey was e-mailed to directors of neuroradiology fellowships with the following questions: 1) Do you currently have a “critical findings” list that you abide by in your neuroradiology division? 2) How is that list distributed to your residents and fellows for implementation, if at all? and 3) Was this list vetted by neurology, neurosurgery, and otolaryngology departments? Programs with CF lists were asked for a copy of the list. Summary and comparative statistics were calculated.

RESULTS: Fifty-one of 89 (57.3%) programs responded. Twenty-one of 51 (41.2%) programs had CF lists. Lists were distributed during orientation, sent via Web sites and e-mails, and posted in work areas. Eleven of 21 lists were developed internally, and 5 of 21, with the input from other departments. The origin of 5 of 21 lists was unknown. Forty CF entities were seen in 20 submitted lists (mean, 9.1; range, 2–23). The most frequent entities were the following: cerebral hemorrhage (18 of 20 lists), acute stroke (15 of 20), spinal cord compression (15 of 20), brain herniation (12 of 20), and spinal fracture/instability (12 of 20). Programs with no CF lists called clinicians on the basis of “common sense” and “clinical judgment.”

CONCLUSIONS: Less than a half (41.2%) of directors of neuroradiology fellowships that responded have implemented CF lists. CF lists have variable length and content and are predominantly developed by radiology departments without external input.