Search

Infolge eines Herzinfarktes verstarb am 14. 12. 2003 Doz. Dr. Martin Rockel. Nachdem es Pokorny abgelehnt hatte, an die ehemalige Kaiser-Wilhelms-Universität zurückzukehren, und anderer Ersatz nicht gefunden wurde, wagte M. Rockel, zwischen 1961 und 1965 von seinem Lehrer Prof. William B. Lockwood betreut, den Neuanfang keltologischer Lehre und Studien an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Zunächst befaßte sich M. Rockel mit dem Walisischen und seiner Literatur und Geschichte sowie mit dem Irischen, Gallischen und Kornischen. Nach Erlangung der Hochschuldozentur 1979 konzentrierte er sich auf die sogenannten p-keltischen Sprachen, einschließlich des Bretonischen. Höhepunkt seines wissenschaftlichen Schaffens waren die Abfassung der Grundzüge der Geschichte der irischen Sprache sowie die Übersetzung der Dichtung von Taliesin und Aneirin ins Deutsche. Sein Werk wurde 1994 durch die Berufung zum Honorarprofessor gekrönt. Schwer traf ihn jedoch nach neu gewonnenen Perspektiven des nach der Wende von ihm mit eingerichteten vollen Studienganges Keltologie der Beschluß vom April 1998, diesen endgültig zu schließen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to investigate how frequently second-opinion radiology reports are not read by clinicians and to identify reasons why reports are not read. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study included 4696 consecutive second-opinion reports of external imaging examinations that were authorized by subspecialty radiologists at a tertiary care institution over a 1-year period. RESULTS. Of 4696 second-opinion reports, 537 were not read by a clinician, corresponding to a frequency of 11.4% (95% CI, 10.6-12.3%). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, five variables were significantly and independently associated with the second-opinion report not being read: inpatient status (odds ratio [OR], 163.26; p < 0.001), sonography as the imaging modality (OR, 5.07; p = 0.014), surgery (OR, 0.18; p < 0.001) or neurology (OR, 2.82; p < 0.001) as the requesting clinician's specialty, and interventional radiology as the subspecialty of the radiologist who authorized the second-opinion report (OR, 3.52; p = 0.047). We found no significant independent associations between the clinician not reading the second-opinion report and patient age, patient sex, or time between submission of the second-opinion request and finalization of the report. CONCLUSION. A considerable proportion of second-opinion reports are not read by clinicians, which represents an appreciable but potentially reversible waste of health care resources. The reasons why clinicians do not read reports need to be investigated in future studies. If subspecialty radiologists and clinicians take the proven determinants into account, the amount of second-opinion readings with limited additional clinical value may be reduced.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to investigate how often referring clinicians comply with recommendations in second opinion radiology reports of abdominal imaging examinations, determinants of their compliance, and diagnostic outcome of recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study included 2225 consecutive tertiary center second opinion radiology reports of abdominal imaging examinations performed at outside institutions. RESULTS. Referring clinicians followed 163 of 307 recommendations, corresponding to a frequency of 53.1% (95% CI, 47.5-58.6%). Logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between referring clinicians' compliance and any of the investigated variables, which included patient age, sex, hospitalization status, indication for reinterpretation, strength and clarity of the recommendation, whether the recommendation was made because of perceived insufficient quality of the original imaging examination, and experience of the radiologist who performed the reinterpretation. Of the 275 recommendations that were eligible for a subanalysis on diagnostic outcome, 147 (53.5%) were followed by the referring clinicians and yielded a malignant diagnosis in 30 cases (20.4%). Of the 128 recommendations that were not followed, the advice would have yielded a malignant diagnosis in four cases (3.1%) if it had been followed. The proportions of malignant diagnoses were significantly different between the recommendations that were followed and those that were not ( p < 0.001), favoring a higher proportion of the former. CONCLUSION. Recommendations in second opinion reports of abdominal imaging examinations are frequently followed by referring clinicians, but it remains unclear as to which factors influence their compliance. These recommendations lead to a malignant diagnosis in a considerable number of cases.