Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Variation in the documentation of findings in pediatric voiding cystourethrogram

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Few standards exist for reporting results of voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG).

Objective

To assess the variation in reporting of VCUG findings from different facilities using a standardized assessment tool.

Materials and methods

VCUG reports were evaluated for demographic, technical, anatomical and functional information. Reports were categorized by age, gender, indication and vesicouretal reflux (VUR) status. Institutions were classified as a free-standing pediatric hospital (n = 3), pediatric hospital within a hospital (n = 11), or non-pediatric facility (n = 24) and reports were classified as having been read by a pediatric radiologist or not. Each category of outside reports (n = 152) was randomly matched with a twice-larger group of Hospital A reports from the same category (n = 304). Multivariate linear regression was used to analyze the association between the primary outcome (percentage of items described in dictated VCUG report) and the type of radiologist and institution.

Results

Of the 456 studies, 66% were in girls, 56% were in those <12 months old, and the indication was urinary tract infection (UTI) in 81%. The mean percentage of items reported was 67 ± 14% (74 ± 7% at free-standing pediatric hospitals, 61 ± 10% at pediatric hospitals within a hospital, and 48 ± 11% at non-pediatric facilities). In multivariate analysis, VCUG reports generated at non-pediatric facilities had 17% fewer items included (95% CI: 14.5–19.7%, P < 0.0001), and pediatric hospitals within a hospital had 9% fewer items included (5.9–12.5%, P < 0.0001) when compared to free-standing pediatric hospitals. Reports read by a pediatric radiologist had 12% more items included (9.1–15.3%, P < 0.0001) compared to those read by a non-pediatric radiologist.

Conclusion

More complete VCUG reports were observed when generated at free-standing pediatric hospitals and when interpreted by a pediatric radiologist.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Houssami N, Boyages J, Stuart K et al (2007) Quality of breast imaging reports falls short of recommended standards. Breast 16:271–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee R, Cohen MD, Jennings GS (2006) A new method of evaluating the quality of radiology reports. Acad Radiol 13:241–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR et al (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260:174–181

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Le T, Fayadh RA, Menard C et al (2008) Variations in ultrasound reporting on patients referred for investigation of ovarian masses. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 30:902–906

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sistrom CL, Langlotz CP (2005) A framework for improving radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol 2:159–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bosmans JM, Weyler JJ, De Schepper AM et al (2011) The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. Radiology 259:184–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Meyer J (2012) Radiological Society of North America radiology reporting templates. http://www.radreport.org/template/0000110. Accessed 30 Sept 2013

  8. Papadopoulou F, Efremidis SC, Oiconomou A et al (2002) Cyclic voiding cystourethrography: is vesicoureteral reflux missed with standard voiding cystourethrography? Eur Radiol 12:666–670

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Children’s Hospital Association (2012) Find a children’s hospital link. http://www.childrenshospitals.net. Accessed 1 Oct 2012

  10. American Board of Radiology (2014) Check board certification link. http://www.theabr.org. Accessed 30 Jan 2014

  11. Frush DP, Donnelly LF, Rosen NS (2003) Computed tomography and radiation risks: what pediatric health care providers should know. Pediatrics 112:951–957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Knudson MJ, Austin JC, McMillan ZM et al (2007) Predictive factors of early spontaneous resolution in children with primary vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol 178:1684–1688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Barrett DM, Malek RS, Kelalis PP (1976) Observations on vesical diverticulum in childhood. J Urol 116:234–236

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Arsanjani A, Alagiri M (2007) Identification of filling versus voiding reflux as predictor of clinical outcome. Urology 70:351–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Estrada CR Jr, Passerotti CC, Graham DA et al (2009) Nomograms for predicting annual resolution rate of primary vesicoureteral reflux: results from 2,462 children. J Urol 182:1535–1541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tynan A, Berenson RA, Christianson JB (2008) Health plans target advanced imaging services: cost, quality and safety concerns prompt renewed oversight. Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change 118:1–4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Andrews M (2012) Some Insurers Paying Patients Who Agree To Get Cheaper Care. Kaiser Health News. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Features/Insuring-Your-Health/2012/Cash-Rewards-For-Cheaper-Care-Michelle-Andrews-032712.aspx. Accessed 15 Dec 2012

  18. Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Bulas D et al (2011) Image gently: progress and challenges in CT education and advocacy. Pediatr Radiol 41:461–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sidhu M, Goske MJ, Connolly B et al (2010) Image Gently, Step Lightly: promoting radiation safety in pediatric interventional radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:299–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Darling S, Sammer M, Chapman T et al (2011) Physician documentation of fluoroscopy time in voiding cystourethrography reports correlates with lower fluoroscopy times: a surrogate marker of patient radiation exposure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:777–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mayo E (1993) The human problems of an industrial civilization, vol 3, 2nd edn. MacMillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Paterson A, Frush DP, Donnelly LF (2001) Helical CT of the body: are settings adjusted for pediatric patients? AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:297–301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hollingsworth C, Frush DP, Cross M et al (2003) Helical CT of the body: a survey of techniques used for pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:401–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Eakins C, Ellis WD, Pruthi S et al (2012) Second opinion interpretations by specialty radiologists at a pediatric hospital: rate of disagreement and clinical implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:916–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gollub MJ, Panicek DM, Bach AM et al (1999) Clinical importance of reinterpretation of body CT scans obtained elsewhere in patients referred for care at a tertiary cancer center. Radiology 210:109–112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sung JC, Sodickson A, Ledbetter S (2009) Outside CT imaging among emergency department transfer patients. J Am Coll Radiol 6:626–632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Loevner LA, Sonners AI, Schulman BJ et al (2002) Reinterpretation of cross-sectional images in patients with head and neck cancer in the setting of a multidisciplinary cancer center. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 23:1622–1626

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Boston Children’s Hospital, 300 Longwood Ave., HU-390, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Anthony J. Schaeffer, Tanya Logvinenko, Graciela Rivera-Castro, Ilina Rosoklija & Caleb P. Nelson

  2. Department of Radiology, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Shreya Sood & Jeanne S. Chow

  3. Clinical Research Center, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Tanya Logvinenko

Authors
  1. Anthony J. Schaeffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shreya Sood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tanya Logvinenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Graciela Rivera-Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ilina Rosoklija
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jeanne S. Chow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Caleb P. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony J. Schaeffer.

Appendix

Appendix

Form generated by Hospital A urologists and pediatric radiologists and used to systematically analyze all voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) reports

figure afigure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schaeffer, A.J., Sood, S., Logvinenko, T. et al. Variation in the documentation of findings in pediatric voiding cystourethrogram. Pediatr Radiol 44, 1548–1556 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3028-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3028-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation