Dataset Information

Remote post-mortem radiology reporting in disaster victim identification: experience gained in the 2017 Grenfell Tower disaster.

ABSTRACT: On 14 June 2017 at 00:54 h, the worst residential fire since the conclusion of the Second World War broke out in Flat 16, 4th floor of the 24-storey residential Grenfell Tower Block of flats, North Kensington, West London, UK. Seventy-one adults and children died, including one stillbirth. All victims of the Grenfell Tower disaster who died at the scene underwent post-mortem computed tomography (PMCT) imaging using a mortuary-sited mobile computed tomography scanner. For the first time, to the authors' knowledge, the disaster victim identification (DVI) radiology reporting was undertaken remote to the mortuary scanning. Over an 11-week period, 119 scans were undertaken on 16 days, with up to 18 scans a day. These were delivered to a remote reporting centre at Leicester on 13 days with between 2 and 20 scans arriving each day. Using a disaster-specific process pathway, a team of 4 reporters, with 3 support staff members, trialled a prototype INTERPOL DVI radiology reporting form and produced full radiology reports and supporting image datasets such that they were able to provide 96% of prototype DVI forms, 99% of image datasets and 86% of preliminary reports to the DVI teams in London within one working day of image receipt. This paper describes the first use of remote radiology reporting for DVI and exemplifies how remote PMCT reporting can be used to support a DVI process of this scale.

SUBMITTER: Rutty GN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7044252 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Remote post-mortem radiology reporting in disaster victim identification: experience gained in the 2017 Grenfell Tower disaster.

Rutty Guy N GN Biggs Mike J P MJP Brough Alison A Morgan Bruno B Webster Philip P Heathcote Ann A Dolan Jessica J Robinson Claire C

International journal of legal medicine 20190628 2

On 14 June 2017 at 00:54 h, the worst residential fire since the conclusion of the Second World War broke out in Flat 16, 4th floor of the 24-storey residential Grenfell Tower Block of flats, North Kensington, West London, UK. Seventy-one adults and children died, including one stillbirth. All victims of the Grenfell Tower disaster who died at the scene underwent post-mortem computed tomography (PMCT) imaging using a mortuary-sited mobile computed tomography scanner. For the first time, to the a ...[more]

PMID: 31250083

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStructured reporting and standardized criteria are increasingly recognized as means of improving both radiological and clinical practice by allowing for better content and clarity. Our aim was to examine oncologists' opinions and expectations concerning the radiologist's report to identify general needs in daily practice and ways to improve interdisciplinary communication.MethodsA 19-question survey was sent to 230 oncologists from three different countries (France, Romania, Switzerland) identified on the online web pages of different hospitals and private clinics. The survey was sent by electronic mail with an online survey program (Google Forms®). All recipients were informed of the purpose of the study. The data were collected by the online survey program and analysed through filtering the results and cross-tabulation.ResultsA total of 52 responses were received (response rate of 22.6%). The majority of the respondents (46/52, 88%) preferred the structured report, which follows a predefined template. Most of the respondents (40/52, 77%) used RECIST 1.1 or iRECIST in tumour assessment. Nearly half of the oncologists (21/52, 40%) measured 1-3 cases per week. On a 10-point Likert scale, 34/52 (65%) oncologists rated their overall level of satisfaction with radiologists' service between 7 and 10. In contrast, 12/52 (19%) oncologists rated the radiologists' service between 1 and 4. Moreover, 42/52 (80%) oncologists acknowledged that reports created by a radiologist with a subspecialty in oncologic imaging were superior to those created by a general radiologist.ConclusionStructured reports in oncologic patients and the use of RECIST criteria are preferred by oncologists in their daily clinical practice, which signals the need for radiologists also to implement such reports to facilitate communication. Furthermore, most of the oncologists we interviewed recognized the added value provided by radiologists specializing in oncologic imaging. Because this subspecialty is present in only a few countries, generally in large clinics, further training might become a challenge; nevertheless, intensive efforts should be made to enhance expertise in cancer imaging.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth and teleradiology are increasingly used around the world to facilitate health care provision when the health care provider and clients are separated by distance. The BreastScreen Australia Remote Radiology Assessment Model (RRAM) is an initiative developed to address the challenges of inadequate access to a local radiological workforce in regional Australia. With the growth in telehealth innovations more broadly, the RRAM represents a departure from the traditional onsite model where a radiologist would be co-located with practice staff during assessment clinics. Understanding client satisfaction is an important consideration with new models. This article explores client perceptions of the RRAM including awareness, satisfaction with experiences, confidence in the quality of care being received, and preferences regarding models of service delivery.MethodsClients in four BreastScreen services across three Australian states and territories were invited to provide feedback on their experiences of the RRAM. Brief face-to-face interviews based on a survey were conducted at the conclusion of assessment clinic visits. Clients also provided feedback through surveys completed and returned by post, and online.Results144 clients completed the survey regarding their experiences of the RRAM. The majority were aged between 50 and 59 years (55/144, 38.2%). Most had attended a BreastScreen service for either screening or assessment on a total of two to five occasions (85/142, 59.9%) in the past. Nearly all women who attended a RRAM clinic expressed satisfaction with their experience (142/143, 99.3%). Clients were aware that the radiologist was working from another location (131/143, 91.6%) and the majority believed there wouldn't be any difference in the care they received between the RRAM and the onsite model (120/142, 84.5%). Clients generally had no particular preference for either the onsite or RRAM model of service delivery.ConclusionsClients' high satisfaction with their clinic experiences, high confidence in care being received, and the majority having no preference for either the onsite or remote model indicates their acceptance of the RRAM. Client acceptance of the model supports continuation of the RRAM at these sites and expansion. Findings may inform future telehealth innovations where key health care team members are working remotely.

Project description:Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of post retraction citations of articles reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method and to find if a different pattern exists between manuscripts reporting an ultrasound method and those reporting other radiology diagnostic methods. This study reviewed retractions stored in PubMed on the subject of radiology-imaging diagnosis to identify the motivation, time from publication to retraction, and citations before and after retraction. The PubMed database was searched on June 2017 to retrieve the retracted articles, and the Scopus database was screened to identify the post-retraction citations. The full text was screened to see the type of post-retraction citation (positive/negative) and whether the cited article appears or not as retracted. One hundred and two retractions were identified, representing 3.5% of the retracted articles indexed by PubMed, out of which 54 were included in the analysis. Half of the articles were retracted in the first 24 months after publication, and the number of post retraction citations was higher than the number of citations before retraction in 30 out of 54 cases (US methods: 9/20, other diagnostic methods 21/34, P-value = 0.2312). The plagiarism was the most common reason for retraction (31%), followed by repetitive publication (26%), and errors in data/manuscript (24%). In less than 2% of cases, the retracted articles appear as retracted in the text or reference list, while the negative citation is observed in 4.84% among manuscripts reporting an US diagnostic method and 0.32% among manuscripts reporting a diagnostic method other than US (P-value = 0.0004). No significant differences were observed when post retraction weighted citation index (WCI, no. of citations weighted by citation window) was compared to WCI prior retraction (P-value = 0.5972). In light of the reported results, we enumerated some recommendations that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.

Dataset Information

Remote post-mortem radiology reporting in disaster victim identification: experience gained in the 2017 Grenfell Tower disaster.

Publications

Remote post-mortem radiology reporting in disaster victim identification: experience gained in the 2017 Grenfell Tower disaster.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets