切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华医学超声杂志(电子版) ›› 2025, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (07) : 637 -642. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2025.07.009

超声医学质量控制

安徽省腹部超声检查现状分析与质量提升策略
张杰, 何年安(), 叶显俊, 刘阳, 张行, 裴蓓   
  1. 230001 安徽 合肥,中国科学技术大学附属第一医院(安徽省立医院)超声医学科
  • 收稿日期:2025-05-12 出版日期:2025-07-01
  • 通信作者: 何年安

Current practices and quality enhancement strategies for abdominal ultrasound examinations in Anhui Province

Jie Zhang, Nian’an He(), Xianjun Ye, Yang Liu, Hang Zhang, Bei Pei   

  1. Department of Ultrasound, the First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230001, China
  • Received:2025-05-12 Published:2025-07-01
  • Corresponding author: Nian’an He
引用本文:

张杰, 何年安, 叶显俊, 刘阳, 张行, 裴蓓. 安徽省腹部超声检查现状分析与质量提升策略[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025, 22(07): 637-642.

Jie Zhang, Nian’an He, Xianjun Ye, Yang Liu, Hang Zhang, Bei Pei. Current practices and quality enhancement strategies for abdominal ultrasound examinations in Anhui Province[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2025, 22(07): 637-642.

目的

调查安徽省腹部超声切面存图及报告质量现状,发现问题并提出改进策略。

方法

2025年1月至3月安徽省共有183家设有超声医学专业的医疗机构在严格保护患者隐私的前提下,参与了腹部超声检查质量控制网络平台的数据上报。每家医院上传6份腹部超声报告电子版及对应存图(其中肝胆胰脾检查3份,泌尿系及肾上腺检查3份)。依据国家超声医学质量控制中心编写的2022版《超声医学质量控制管理规范》,对所有报告进行分析,统计正常报告存图合格率、病变存图合格率、综合切面漏存率、体标标注率、报告书写合格率。采用多组率χ2检验分析肝、胆、胰、脾4组及泌尿系及肾上腺(肾、输尿管、膀胱、前列腺、肾上腺)5组的正常报告存图合格率及病变存图合格率的差异,两两比较时,采用Bonferroni校正。采用四格表χ2检验分析肝胆胰脾与泌尿系及肾上腺2组的体标标注率、报告书写合格率的差异。

结果

肝胆胰脾病例共549例,肝、胆、胰、脾正常报告存图合格率分别为50.78%、73.76%、90.07%、91.49%,肝、胆、胰、脾病变存图合格率分别为54.83%、42.71%、66.67%、52.14%,肝胆胰脾综合切面漏存率为34.69%,其中肝胆切面漏存率较高(44.62%),体标标注率为5.46%(30/549),报告书写合格率为73.22%(402/549)。泌尿系及肾上腺病例共580例,肾、输尿管、膀胱、前列腺、肾上腺正常报告存图合格率分别为89.86%、26.36%、67.39%、68.48%、75.11%,肾、输尿管、膀胱、前列腺、肾上腺病变存图合格率分别为53.14%、40.01%、55.47%、64.26%、65.65%,泌尿系及肾上腺综合切面漏存率为39.43%,其中输尿管切面漏存率较高(66.72%),体标标注率为8.79%(51/580),报告书写合格率为72.41%(420/580)。肝和胆正常报告存图合格率低于胰腺和脾(P<0.001)。输尿管正常报告存图合格率低于肾、膀胱、前列腺和肾上腺(P<0.001)。

结论

安徽省腹部超声肝胆和输尿管正常报告切面漏存率较高、报告书写合格率偏低,需加强超声质量控制培训,提升超声诊断质量。

Objective

To investigate the quality of abdominal ultrasound sectional images and reports in Anhui Province, identify existing problems, and propose improvement strategies.

Methods

In the first quarter of 2025, a total of 183 medical institutions in Anhui Province with ultrasound medicine specialties participated in data reporting through the abdominal ultrasound examination quality control network platform, with strict adherence to patient privacy protection protocols. Each hospital submitted six electronic copies of abdominal ultrasound reports along with corresponding stored images (including 3 hepatobiliary-pancreatic-spleen examinations and 3 urinary system and adrenal gland examinations). Based on the 2022 edition of the Ultrasound Medicine Quality Control Management Standards compiled by the National Ultrasound Medicine Quality Control Center, all reports were analyzed. The following quality metrics were statistically analyzed: the qualified rate of image storage in normal and pathological reports, the omission rate of comprehensive anatomical sections, the body marker rate, and the compliance rate of report documentation. Differences in image storage qualification rates between normal and pathological reports were analyzed using the chi-square test for multiple proportions, and comparisons were performed across four organ groups (liver, gallbladder, pancreas, and spleen) and five organ groups (urinary system and adrenal glands). For pairwise comparisons, the Bonferroni correction was applied. The chi-square test for 2×2 tables was employed to analyze the differences in body mark rates and report documentation compliance rates between the two groups (hepatobiliary-pancreatic-splenic vs urinary-adrenal).

Results

Among 549 hepatobiliary, pancreatic, and splenic cases, the qualified rates of normal report image storage for the liver, gallbladder, pancreas, and spleen were 50.78%, 73.76%, 90.07%, and 91.49%, respectively. The qualified rates of image storage for pathological findings in the liver, gallbladder, pancreas, and spleen were 54.83%, 42.71%, 66.67%, and 52.14%, respectively. The overall missed image storage rate for hepatobiliary-pancreatic-splenic sections was 34.69%, with a notably higher proportion of missed hepatobiliary sections (44.62%). The body marker rate was 5.46% (30/549). The report documentation compliance rate was 73.22% (402/549). Among 580 cases of urinary tract and adrenal gland examinations, the qualified rates of standard image documentation for normal findings were as follows: kidney 89.86%, ureter 26.36%, bladder 67.39%, prostate 68.48%, and adrenal gland 75.11%. The adequate documentation rates for pathological findings were: kidney 53.14%, ureter 40.01%, bladder 55.47%, prostate 64.26%, and adrenal gland 65.65%. The overall missed capture rate for urinary-adrenal anatomical sections was 39.43%, with ureteral sections accounting for the highest proportion (66.72%). The body marker rate was 8.79% (51/580). Report compliance rate was 72.41% (420/580). The qualified rate of normal report image storage for the liver and biliary system was lower than that for the pancreas and spleen (P<0.001). The qualified rate of normal report image storage for the ureters was lower than that for the kidneys, bladder, prostate, and adrenal glands (P<0.001).

Conclusion

The abdominal ultrasound reports in Anhui Province show a relatively high rate of missing standard liver, biliary system, and ureter scan planes, along with a suboptimal report-writing compliance rate. It is necessary to strengthen quality control training in ultrasonography to improve the diagnostic quality of ultrasound examinations.

图1 安徽省183家超声医学专业机构地域分布图
图2 安徽省各城市肝胆胰脾正常报告存图合格率
图3 安徽省各城市肝胆胰脾病变存图合格率
图4 安徽省各城市泌尿系及肾上腺正常报告存图合格率
图5 安徽省各城市泌尿系及肾上腺病变存图合格率
1
王佳佳, 王金萍, 姜凡, 等. 2019年度安徽省三级中医院和其他三级综合医院超声质量控制调查比较 [J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2021, 18(7): 643-646.
2
尹立雪, 张红梅. 超声医学质量控制的基本概念和基本原则 [J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(7): 609-612.
3
国家超声医学质量控制中心, 北京市超声医学质量控制和改进中心组织. 超声医学质量控制管理规范 [M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2022: 30-58.
4
Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries [J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2024, 74(3): 229-263.
5
American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM). AIUM practice parameter for documentation of an ultrasound examination [J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2020, 39(1): E1-E4.
6
孙迎燕, 徐敏, 赵毅玲, 等. 模拟人结合PBL在超声科住院医师规范化培训中的应用 [J].中国现代医生, 2024, 62(12): 88-90.
7
薛恩生, 陈舜. 超声医学专业医疗质量控制指标(2022年版)的解读及临床应用 [J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(7): 690-692.
[1] 曹柳柳, 王佳佳, 武林松, 彭梅, 姜凡. PDCA导向的危急值管理质量提升:安徽省超声科调查干预与数据反馈的实证研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025, 22(07): 628-632.
[2] 应康, 郭良云, 胡震. 超声心动图对成人型主动脉缩窄漏诊原因分析及质量控制改进措施[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025, 22(07): 633-636.
[3] 纪韦琪, 李昆萍, 窦羡纳, 郭志伟, 魏淑如. 品管圈提升超声诊断子宫肌瘤准确率的应用效果[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025, 22(05): 427-433.
[4] 程珊珊, 李荣斌. PDCA 循环法在乳腺超声诊断质量控制中的应用[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025, 22(05): 420-426.
[5] 谢忱忱, 唐静, 胡燕丽, 冉茜, 肖春梅, 冉素真. 基于PDSA 循环的O-RADS 分类在卵巢肿瘤超声诊断质量控制中的应用[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025, 22(05): 408-413.
[6] 陈卫华, 曾君, 游宇光, 陈莉, 章春泉, 任苓, 葛贻珑, 叶军, 罗雅菲. 江西省市超声质量控制中心紧密联动、多措并举,努力提升超声医疗质量[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025, 22(05): 397-401.
[7] 何冠南, 谭莹, 路玉欢, 蒲斌, 扬水华, 张仁铁, 陈明, 石智红, 钟晓红, 陈曦, 燕柳屹, 李胜利. 人工智能在胎儿超声心动图标准切面质量控制中的多中心应用研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025, 22(05): 388-396.
[8] 张睿超, 杨诗源, 李况蒙, 蒋洁, 刘畅, 崔立刚. 男性生殖超声质量控制经验分享[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025, 22(05): 434-443.
[9] 陈茵, 谭莹, 谭渤瀚, 何冠南, 王磊, 温昕, 朱巧珍, 梁博诚, 李胜利. 基于YOLO V8 的胎儿脐膨出超声智能质量评估与诊断[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025, 22(04): 305-310.
[10] 罗辉, 方晔. 品管圈在提高甲状腺结节细针穿刺检出率中的应用[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(10): 972-977.
[11] 张亚庆, 黄旴宁, 许珊珊, 刘小蓝. 海南省二级与三级医院超声医学质量控制指标分析[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(07): 681-685.
[12] 国家感染性疾病医疗质量控制中心. 慢性乙型肝炎及并发症诊治质量改进专家共识[J/OL]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 16-22.
[13] 薛明, 吕奔, 邱海波, 杨毅. 中国重症医学质量控制:2024年度进展与展望[J/OL]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2025, 11(01): 6-10.
[14] 汪小琳, 廖娟, 冯声蓉, 王毅, 金碧, 黄银平. 经腹超声黏膜下层指数结合血液炎症检查对中重度溃疡性结肠炎患者治疗效果的评价[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2025, 15(01): 60-64.
[15] 钟宇, 聂紫滢, 江玥婷, 吕俊, 符婷. 基于基层全科医疗质量控制的探索和实践[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 292-301.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?