García-Núñez LM, González L, Cabello PR, Lever RCD, Rosales ME, Padilla SR

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 3-7
PDF size: 46.86 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Victim of modern imaging technology syndrome (VOMIT) in traumatized patients is a recently described morbid state, a consequence of the wrong use of the medical technology advances.
Material and methods: Bibliographic related and electronic information network search related to the VOMIT syndrome.
Results: This syndrome has been described not so long ago. There are not any series yet that could specify its epidemiology nor any effective strategies to avoid it.
Conclusions: The knowledge to prevent the possibility for this syndrome to appear the short-way learning strategies, the faithful adherence to interpretation standards and to radiologic reading and even more the close coordination between the medical attention team (Radiologist-Trauma Surgeon), can be the key points to lessen the probability for this syndrome to appear.

REFERENCES

1. McKersie RC. VOMIT syndrome. Proceedings from: Trauma and Critical Care Symposium 2005, Las Vegas, Nevada, US, march 1-5, 2005.

2. Sclafani, S, Leidner B, Mattox K. The Antiemetic Panel. What is Vomit? Available on line in: TRAUMA.ORG. Radiology: Misreads (VOMIT): Aorta – antiemetic@trauma.org. Screens 1-5, January 15, 2005.

3. Ortega TD, García MC. Prevención de riesgo en Radiología: El error y el Radiólogo. Rev Chil Radiol 2002; 8(3): 135-40.

4. Berlin L. Communication of the urgent finding. AJR 1996; 166: 513-5.

5. García C, Ortega D. El informe radiológico: por sus dichos los conoceréis. Rev Chil Radiol 2001; 7: 65-9.

6. Guly HR. Diagnostic errors in an accident and emergency department. Emerg Med J 2002; 19(4): 374.

7. Alfaro D,Levitt MA, English DK, Williams V, Eisenberg R. Accuracy of interpretation of cranial computed tomography scans in an emergency medicine residency program. Ann Emerg Med 1995; 25(2): 169-74.

8. Garcia MC. Anatomía del error en Radiología. Rev Chil Radiol 2003; 9(3): 144-50.

9. Kopans DB. Breast Imaging 2nd Ed. Philadelphia: Lippincot-Raven; 1998, p. 797.

10. Renfrew DL, Franken EA, Berbaum KS, Weigelt FH, Abu-Yousef MM. Error in Radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case Conference. Radiology 1992; 183: 145-50.

11. Software for Establishing Teleradiologic Links for Quantitative Volumetric Imaging Consultation. On line in: Division of Physiologic Imaging, Department of Radiology, University of Iowa College of Medicine, 1994-2004.

12. Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology. Alliterative errors. AJR 2000; 174; 925-31.

13. Roszler MH, McCarroll KA, Rashid T, Donovan KR, Kling A. Resident interpretation for emergency computed tomography scans. Invest Radiol 1991; 26(4): 374-6.

14. Erly WK, Berger WG, Krupinski E, Seeger JF, Guisto JA. Radiology resident evaluation of head CT scan orders in the emergency department. Am J Neuroradiol 2002 23; 103-7.

15. Lal NR, Murray UM, Eldevik OP, Desmond JS. Clinical consequences of misinterpretations of neuroradiological CT scans by on-call radiology residents. Am J Neuroradiol 2000: 21: 124-9.

16. Levitt MA, Dawkins R, Williams V, Bullock S. Abbreviated educational session improves cranial computed tomography scan interpretations by emergency physicians. Ann Emerg Med 1997; 30: 616-21.

17. Perron AD, Huff JS, Ullrich CG, Heafner MD, Kline JA. A multicenter study to improve emergency medicine residents’ recognition of intracranial emergencies on computed tomography. Ann Emerg Med 1998; 32: 554-62

18. Preston CA, Marr JJ, Amaraneni KK, Suthar BS. Reduction of “call-backs” to the emergency department due to discrepancies in the plain radiograph interpretation. Am J Emerg Med 1998; 16: 160-2.

19. Espinosa JA, Nolan TW. Reducing errors made by emergency physicians in interpreting radiographs: longitudinal study. Brit Med J 2000; 320: 737-40.