Radiologists' vs. surgeons' reading performance in non traumatic acute abdomen CTs : P32

Purpose: Emergency room reading performances have been a point of interest in recent studies comparing radiologists to other physician groups. Our objective was to evaluate and compare the reading performances of radiologists and surgeons in an emergency room setting of non-traumatic abdominal CTs. Methods and materials: A total of ten readers representing four groups participated in this study: three senior radiologists and visceral surgeons, respectively, and two junior radiologists and surgeons, respectively. Each observer blindedly evaluated a total of 150 multi-slice acute abdominal CTs. CTs were chosen representing established proportions of acute abdomen pathologies in a Level I trauma centre from 2003 to 2005. Each answer was interpretated as right or wrong regarding pathology location, diagnosis and need for operation. Gold standard was the intraoperative result, and the clinical patient follow-up for non-operated patients. Significance was assumed at a p <.05 level. Results: Senior radiologists had a mean score of 2.38 ± 1.14, junior radiologists a score of 2.34 ± 1.14, whereas senior surgeons scored 2.07 ± 1.30 and junior surgeons 1.62 ± 1.42. No significant difference was found between the two radiologist groups, but results were significantly better for senior surgeons as compared to junior surgeons and better for the two radiologist groups as compared to each of the surgeon groups (all p <.05). Conclusion: Abdominal CT reading in an acute abdomen setting should continue to rely on an evaluation by a radiologist, whether senior or junior. Satisfying reading results can be achieved by senior visceral surgeons, but junior surgeons need more experience for a good reading performance.

Associations between perceived discrimination and health status among frequent Emergency Department users

Objective: Frequent Emergency Department (ED) users are vulnerable individuals and discrimination is usually associated with increased vulnerability. The aim of this study was to investigate frequent ED users' perceptions of discrimination and to test whether they were associated with increased vulnerability. Methods: In total, 250 adult frequent ED users were interviewed in Lausanne University Hospital. From a previously published questionnaire, we assessed 15 dichotomous sources of perceived discrimination. Vulnerability was assessed using health status: objective health status (evaluation by a healthcare practitioner including somatic, mental health, behavioral, and social issues - dichotomous variables) and subjective health status [self-evaluation including health-related quality of life (WHOQOL) and quality of life (EUROQOL) - mean-scores]. We computed the prevalence rates of perceived discrimination and tested associations between perceived discrimination and health status (Fischer's exact tests, Mann-Whitney U-tests)