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. FINDINGS Patient 251 - 985 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 –Stone196 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 Cysts85pt. = 11,6% –Kidneys –Liver

7. Patological findings. Liver steatose83 Haemangiomas15 Pancreatic32 Spleen47

8. Patological findings. Nephrolithiasis32 Hydronephrosis35 Aorta –ectasia / sclerosis 30 Ascites35

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: –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: 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 50 ZZ Hospital 50 ReRa x2 100 Total 250 Other diagnosis18271948112 Polyps341210 Gall bladder stones 125101643 Nothing abnormal23192442108

17. Results % XX Hospital 50 YY Hospital 50 ZZ Hospital 50 ReRa x2 100 Total 250 Other Diagnosis36%54%38%48%45% Polyps6%8%2% 4% Gall bladder stones24%10%20%16%17% Nothing abnormal46%38%48%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 Positive –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

21. Positive and negative impact Negative –None! –(no complains in more than 8.000 examinations!) –but –”2” patient had asked for a ”doctor”

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

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 Radiographer are needed! Thank you for your attention