1. Reporting Radiographer Sonographer
A well established function with high rate of satisfaction

2. Questions Do patients have the same expectations In relation to
Quality of the examination
Quality of diagnosis
Information
Further treatment

3. Patient 251 - 985 Retrospectiv Analysis.
FINDINGS
Patient
Retrospectiv Analysis.

4. Statistic 735 Reports. Nothing abnormal = 204 patients / 27,7%.
964 findings in 531 patients = ratio at 1,8
Help to examination = 130 examinations / 17,6%

5. Patological findings. Gall bladder with Stone 196 patients = 26,7%
Sludge +
PLGB Polyp lesion in Gall bladder = 43 patients
239 patients / 32,5%

6. Patological findings. Focal lesions 28 patients. = 3,8%
Liver metastasis
Pancreatic tumor
Hypernephroma
Cysts 85pt. = 11,6%
Kidneys
Liver

7. Patological findings. Liver steatose 83 Haemangiomas 15 Pancreatic 32
Spleen 47

8. Patological findings. Nephrolithiasis 32 Hydronephrosis 35 Aorta
ectasia / sclerosis 30
Ascites 35

9. Patological findings. Other: 173 patients = 23,5%
Calcifications, Angiomyolipomas
Lipioma / fibroma, Stents
Nephropathia, Cirrhosis, Dilatatio via bilarum
Cholecystitis, Portal enlarged lymph nodes,
Situs inversus, Nephrocalcinosis.
A. renalis stenosis.

10. Patological findings.
GB:
520, 589, 629, 635, 782,

11. Patological findings. Focal Lesions: Cysts: 520, 541, 792, 818,
Lever metastasis: 567, 645, 659, 872
Pancreatic tumor: 600,
Hypernephroma:
Cysts: 520, 541, 792, 818,

13. Materials and Methods A retrospective analysis of reports
Inconclusions criteria
Patients with classical upper abdominal problems such as GB-stones or ulcer symptoms
Selections bias are minimised by exclusion of patients with known oncological diseases or complicated procedures

14. Method
A retrospective reading on reports of patients referred to fasting Ultrasound examination of the upper abdomen.
This gives a clear picture of the prevalence in own material. Both regarding own examinations, but also with the possibility to compare with the radiologists within the speciality.

15. Data gathering Included: Excluded: 250 Patients with:
classical symptoms of gall bladder stones
Non characteristic symptoms of upper abdomen
Para clinical weight loss
Abnormal hepatic blood counts
Excluded:
Patients in known oncological treatment
Complicated examinations done by radiologists
Selection bias are hereby tried to be minimised.

16. Results XX Hospital 50 YY Hospital ZZ Hospital ReRa x2 100 250
Total
250
Other diagnosis 18 27 19 48
112
Polyps 3 4 1 2 10
Gall bladder stones 12 5 16 43
Nothing abnormal 23 24 42
108

17. Results % XX Hospital 50 YY Hospital ZZ Hospital ReRa x2 100 250
Total
250
Other Diagnosis
36%
54%
38%
48%
45%
Polyps 6% 8% 2% 4%
Gall bladder stones
24%
10%
20%
16%
17%
Nothing abnormal
46%
42%
43%

19. Production and economi
Data gathering from the past 10 weeks
36% of the examinations were carried out by Reporting Radiographer
11 patients per day – 56 % non planned included

20. Positive and negative impact
Shorter waiting time – all time is waiting time
A none negliable better prognose in treatment of other patient with cancer diseases
Less worries in 27,7% - case closed without findings!
Cheaper salary
More free ”space” for more complicated procedures for the radiologists 20

21. Positive and negative impact
None!
(no complains in more than examinations!)
but
”2” patient had asked for a ”doctor” 21

22. Future aspects Educationel matters
DSDU the Danish Society of Diagnostic Ultrasound ”Drivers license”
Training programmes
EFSUMB recommendations
Developing new fields
Well described borders 22

23. Conclusion Educationally conditions Well described frames an borders
High success ratio with an
Positive impact on
Patient satisfaction and treatment and
Economy
Therefore

24. Reporting Radiographers & Sonographers are needed
Reporting Radiographers & Sonographers are needed! Thank you for your attention