Development, implementation, and evaluation of a structured reporting web tool for abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND The majority of radiological reports are lacking a standard structure. Even within a specialized area of radiology, each report has its individual structure with regards to details and order, often containing too much of non-relevant information the referring physician is not interested in. For gathering relevant clinical key parameters in an efficient way or to support long-term therapy monitoring, structured reporting might be advantageous. OBJECTIVE Despite of new technologies in medical information systems, medical reporting is still not dynamic. To improve the quality of communication in radiology reports, a new structured reporting system was developed for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), intended to enhance professional communication by providing the pertinent clinical information in a predefined standard. METHODS Actual state analysis was performed within the departments of radiology and vascular surgery by developing a Technology Acceptance Model. The SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis focused on optimization of the radiology reporting of patients with AAA. Definition of clinical parameters was achieved by interviewing experienced clinicians in radiology and vascular surgery. For evaluation, a focus group (4 radiologists) looked at the reports of 16 patients. The usability and reliability of the method was validated in a real-world test environment in the field of radiology. RESULTS A Web-based application for radiological "structured reporting" (SR) was successfully standardized for AAA. Its organization comprises three main categories: characteristics of pathology and adjacent anatomy, measurements, and additional findings. Using different graphical widgets (eg, drop-down menus) in each category facilitate predefined data entries. Measurement parameters shown in a diagram can be defined for clinical monitoring and be adducted for quick adjudications. Figures for optional use to guide and standardize the reporting are embedded. Analysis of variance shows decreased average time required with SR to obtain a radiological report compared to free-text reporting (P=.0001). Questionnaire responses confirm a high acceptance rate by the user. CONCLUSIONS The new SR system may support efficient radiological reporting for initial diagnosis and follow-up for AAA. Perceived advantages of our SR platform are ease of use, which may lead to more accurate decision support. The new system is open to communicate not only with clinical partners but also with Radiology Information and Hospital Information Systems.

'Saying it without words': a qualitative study of oncology staff's experiences with speaking up about safety concerns.

OBJECTIVES To explore the experiences of oncology staff with communicating safety concerns and to examine situational factors and motivations surrounding the decision whether and how to speak up using semistructured interviews. SETTING 7 oncology departments of six hospitals in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS Diverse sample of 32 experienced oncology healthcare professionals. RESULTS Nurses and doctors commonly experience situations which raise their concerns and require questioning, clarifying and correcting. Participants often used non-verbal communication to signal safety concerns. Speaking-up behaviour was strongly related to a clinical safety issue. Most episodes of 'silence' were connected to hygiene, isolation and invasive procedures. In contrast, there seemed to exist a strong culture to communicate questions, doubts and concerns relating to medication. Nearly all interviewees were concerned with 'how' to say it and in particular those of lower hierarchical status reflected on deliberate 'voicing tactics'. CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate a widely accepted culture to discuss any concerns relating to medication safety while other issues are more difficult to voice. Clinicians devote considerable efforts to evaluate the situation and sensitively decide whether and how to speak up. Our results can serve as a starting point to develop a shared understanding of risks and appropriate communication of safety concerns among staff in oncology.

Trade-offs between voice and silence: a qualitative exploration of oncology staff's decisions to speak up about safety concerns

BACKGROUND Research suggests that "silence", i.e., not voicing safety concerns, is common among health care professionals (HCPs). Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and thus to prevent harm and also to improve a culture of teamwork and safety. The aim of our study was to explore factors that affect oncology staff's decision to voice safety concerns or to remain silent and to describe the trade-offs they make. METHODS In a qualitative interview study with 32 doctors and nurses from 7 oncology units we investigated motivations and barriers to speaking up towards co-workers and supervisors. An inductive thematic content analysis framework was applied to the transcripts. Based on the individual experiences of participants, we conceptualize the choice to voice concerns and the trade-offs involved. RESULTS Preventing patients from serious harm constitutes a strong motivation to speaking up but competes with anticipated negative outcomes. Decisions whether and how to voice concerns involved complex considerations and trade-offs. Many respondents reflected on whether the level of risk for a patient "justifies" the costs of speaking up. Various barriers for voicing concerns were reported, e.g., damaging relationships. Contextual factors, such as the presence of patients and co-workers in the alarming situation, affect the likelihood of anticipated negative outcomes. Speaking up to well-known co-workers was described as considerably easier whereas "not knowing the actor well" increases risks and potential costs of speaking up. CONCLUSIONS While doctors and nurses felt strong obligation to prevent errors reaching individual patients, they were not engaged in voicing concerns beyond this immediacy. Our results offer in-depth insight into fears and conditions conducive of silence and voicing and can be used for educational interventions and leader reinforcement.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Silence That Can Be Dangerous: A Vignette Study to Assess Healthcare Professionals' Likelihood of Speaking up about Safety Concerns

PURPOSE To investigate the likelihood of speaking up about patient safety in oncology and to clarify the effect of clinical and situational context factors on the likelihood of voicing concerns. PATIENTS AND METHODS 1013 nurses and doctors in oncology rated four clinical vignettes describing coworkers' errors and rule violations in a self-administered factorial survey (65% response rate). Multiple regression analysis was used to model the likelihood of speaking up as outcome of vignette attributes, responder's evaluations of the situation and personal characteristics. RESULTS Respondents reported a high likelihood of speaking up about patient safety but the variation between and within types of errors and rule violations was substantial. Staff without managerial function provided significantly higher levels of decision difficulty and discomfort to speak up. Based on the information presented in the vignettes, 74%-96% would speak up towards a supervisor failing to check a prescription, 45%-81% would point a coworker to a missed hand disinfection, 82%-94% would speak up towards nurses who violate a safety rule in medication preparation, and 59%-92% would question a doctor violating a safety rule in lumbar puncture. Several vignette attributes predicted the likelihood of speaking up. Perceived potential harm, anticipated discomfort, and decision difficulty were significant predictors of the likelihood of speaking up. CONCLUSIONS Clinicians' willingness to speak up about patient safety is considerably affected by contextual factors. Physicians and nurses without managerial function report substantial discomfort with speaking up. Oncology departments should provide staff with clear guidance and trainings on when and how to voice safety concerns.

Frequency of and predictors for withholding patient safety concerns among oncology staff: a survey study.

Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and to improve a culture of safety. This study investigated the prevalence of non-speaking up despite concerns for safety and aimed to identify predictors for withholding voice among healthcare professionals (HCPs) in oncology. A self-administered questionnaire assessed safety concerns, speaking up beliefs and behaviours among nurses and doctors from nine oncology departments. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify predictors for withholding safety concerns. A total of 1013 HCPs returned the completed survey (response rate 65%). Safety concerns were common among responders. Fifty-four per cent reported to recognise their colleagues making potentially harmful errors at least sometimes. A majority of responders reported at least some episodes of withholding concerns about patient safety. Thirty-seven per cent said they remained silent at least once when they had information that might have helped prevent an incident. Respondents believed that a high level of interpersonal, communication and coping skills are necessary to speak up about patient safety issues at their workplace. Higher levels of perceived advocacy for patient safety and psychological safety significantly decreased the frequency of withholding voice. Remaining silent about safety concerns is a common phenomenon in oncology. Improved strategies are needed to support staff in effective communication and make cancer care safer.

Reporting of statistical results in prosthodontic and implantology journals: p values or confidence intervals?

PURPOSE Confidence intervals (CIs) are integral to the interpretation of the precision and clinical relevance of research findings. The aim of this study was to ascertain the frequency of reporting of CIs in leading prosthodontic and dental implantology journals and to explore possible factors associated with improved reporting. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty issues of nine journals in prosthodontics and implant dentistry were accessed, covering the years 2005 to 2012: The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Implant Dentistry, and Journal of Dentistry. Articles were screened and the reporting of CIs and P values recorded. Other information including study design, region of authorship, involvement of methodologists, and ethical approval was also obtained. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify characteristics associated with reporting of CIs. RESULTS Interrater agreement for the data extraction performed was excellent (kappa = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.89). CI reporting was limited, with mean reporting across journals of 14%. CI reporting was associated with journal type, study design, and involvement of a methodologist or statistician. CONCLUSIONS Reporting of CI in implant dentistry and prosthodontic journals requires improvement. Improved reporting will aid appraisal of the clinical relevance of research findings by providing a range of values within which the effect size lies, thus giving the end user the opportunity to interpret the results in relation to clinical practice.

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics.

OBJECTIVES Accurate trial reporting facilitates evaluation and better use of study results. The objective of this article is to investigate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in leading orthodontic journals, and to explore potential predictors of improved reporting. METHODS The 50 most recent issues of 4 leading orthodontic journals until November 2013 were electronically searched. Reporting quality assessment was conducted using the modified CONSORT statement checklist. The relationship between potential predictors and the modified CONSORT score was assessed using linear regression modeling. RESULTS 128 RCTs were identified with a mean modified CONSORT score of 68.97% (SD = 11.09). The Journal of Orthodontics (JO) ranked first in terms of completeness of reporting (modified CONSORT score 76.21%, SD = 10.1), followed by American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO) (73.05%, SD = 10.1). Journal of publication (AJODO: β = 10.08, 95% CI: 5.78, 14.38; JO: β = 16.82, 95% CI: 11.70, 21.94; EJO: β = 7.21, 95% CI: 2.69, 11.72 compared to Angle), year of publication (β = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.28, 1.67 for each additional year), region of authorship (Europe: β = 5.19, 95% CI: 1.30, 9.09 compared to Asia/other), statistical significance (significant: β = 3.10, 95% CI: 0.11, 6.10 compared to non-significant) and methodologist involvement (involvement: β = 5.60, 95% CI: 1.66, 9.54 compared to non-involvement) were all significant predictors of improved modified CONSORT scores in the multivariable model. Additionally, median overall Jadad score was 2 (IQR = 2) across journals, with JO (median = 3, IQR = 1) and AJODO (median = 3, IQR = 2) presenting the highest score values. CONCLUSION The reporting quality of RCTs published in leading orthodontic journals is considered suboptimal in various CONSORT areas. This may have a bearing in trial result interpretation and use in clinical decision making and evidence- based orthodontic treatment interventions.

Active implementation strategy of CONSORT adherence by a dental specialty journal improved randomized clinical trial reporting.

OBJECTIVE To describe a novel CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) adherence strategy implemented by the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO) and to report its impact on the completeness of reporting of published trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING The AJO-DO CONSORT adherence strategy, initiated in June 2011, involves active assessment of randomized clinical trial (RCT) reporting during the editorial process. The completeness of reporting CONSORT items was compared between trials submitted and published during the implementation period (July 2011 to September 2013) and trials published between August 2007 and July 2009. RESULTS Of the 42 RCTs submitted (July 2011 to September 2013), 23 were considered for publication and assessed for completeness of reporting, seven of which were eventually published. For all published RCTs between 2007 and 2009 (n = 20), completeness of reporting by CONSORT item ranged from 0% to 100% (Median = 40%, interquartile range = 60%). All published trials in 2011-2013, reported 33 of 37 CONSORT (sub) items. Four CONSORT 2010 checklist items remained problematic even after implementation of the adherence strategy: changes to methods (3b), changes to outcomes (6b) after the trial commenced, interim analysis (7b), and trial stopping (14b), which are typically only reported when applicable. CONCLUSION Trials published following implementation of the AJO-DO CONSORT adherence strategy completely reported more CONSORT items than those published or submitted previously.

Assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of oral implantology.

AIM Abstracts of randomized clinical trials are extremely important as trial appraisal is often based on the information included here. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of the reporting of RCT abstracts in journals of Oral Implantology. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six leading Implantology journals were screened for RCTs between years 2008 and 2012. A 21-item modified CONSORT for abstracts checklist was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. Descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling were employed for data analysis. RESULTS One hundred and sixty three RCT abstracts were included in this study. The majority of the RCTs were published in the Clinical Oral Implants Research (42.9%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 58.6% (95% CI: 57.6-59.7). The highest score was noted in the European Journal of Oral Implantology (63.8%; 95% CI: 61.8-65.8). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that abstract quality score was related to publication journal and number of research centers involved. Most abstracts adequately reported interventions (89.0%), objectives (77.9%) and conclusions (74.8%) while failed to report randomization procedures, allocation concealment, effect estimate, confidence intervals, and funding. Registration of RCTs was not reported in any of the abstracts. CONCLUSIONS The reporting quality in abstracts of RCTs published in Oral Implantology journals needs to be improved. Editors and authors should be encouraged to endorse the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines in order to achieve optimal quality in abstract reporting.

Attitudes and Beliefs of Pig Farmers and Wild Boar Hunters Towards Reporting of African Swine Fever in Bulgaria, Germany and the Western Part of the Russian Federation

This study investigated the attitudes and beliefs of pig farmers and hunters in Germany, Bulgaria and the western part of the Russian Federation towards reporting suspected cases of African swine fever (ASF). Data were collected using a web-based questionnaire survey targeting pig farmers and hunters in these three study areas. Separate multivariable logistic regression models identified key variables associated with each of the three binary outcome variables whether or not farmers would immediately report suspected cases of ASF, whether or not hunters would submit samples from hunted wild boar for diagnostic testing and whether or not hunters would report wild boar carcasses. The results showed that farmers who would not immediately report suspected cases of ASF are more likely to believe that their reputation in the local community would be adversely affected if they were to report it, that they can control the outbreak themselves without the involvement of veterinary services and that laboratory confirmation would take too long. The modelling also indicated that hunters who did not usually submit samples of their harvested wild boar for ASF diagnosis, and hunters who did not report wild boar carcasses are more likely to justify their behaviour through a lack of awareness of the possibility of reporting. These findings emphasize the need to develop more effective communication strategies targeted at pig farmers and hunters about the disease, its epidemiology, consequences and control methods, to increase the likelihood of early reporting, especially in the Russian Federation where the virus circulates

Comparison of noninferiority margins reported in protocols and publications showed incomplete and inconsistent reporting.

OBJECTIVES To compare noninferiority margins defined in study protocols and trial registry records with margins reported in subsequent publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Comparison of protocols of noninferiority trials submitted 2001 to 2005 to ethics committees in Switzerland and The Netherlands with corresponding publications and registry records. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library issue 01/2012), and Google Scholar in September 2013 to identify published reports, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organization in March 2013 to identify registry records. Two readers recorded the noninferiority margin and other data using a standardized data-abstraction form. RESULTS The margin was identical in study protocol and publication in 43 (80%) of 54 pairs of study protocols and articles. In the remaining pairs, reporting was inconsistent (five pairs, 9%), or the noninferiority margin was either not reported in the publication (five pairs, 9%) or not defined in the study protocol (one pair). The confidence interval or the exact P-value required to judge whether the result was compatible with noninferior, inferior, or superior efficacy was reported in 43 (80%) publications. Complete and consistent reporting of both noninferiority margin and confidence interval (or exact P-value) was present in 39 (72%) protocol-publication pairs. Twenty-nine trials (54%) were registered in trial registries, but only one registry record included the noninferiority margin. CONCLUSION The reporting of noninferiority margins was incomplete and inconsistent with study protocols in a substantial proportion of published trials, and margins were rarely reported in trial registries.