Emergency abdominal radiography: Discrepancies of preliminary and final interpretation and management relevance

The purpose of this study was to determine the discrepancy rate between the preliminary interpretation of abdominal radiographs by emergency physicians compared to the final report rendered by gastrointestinal radiologists, and to assess the impact of such discrepancies on patient management. A retrospective analysis was performed on a sample of abdominal plain radiographs obtained in the emergency department of a private urban teaching hospital. Written preliminary interpretations by the emergency physician were compared to the final dictated reports of the gastrointestinal radiologist. An emergency physician determined whether availability of the final interpretation would have changed patient management. There were 387 abdominal plain film studies that satisfied the criteria for inclusion. Of these, 98 discordant interpretations were noted (an interpretive discrepancy rate of 25.3%). In 16 of the 98 cases (16%), the interpretive discrepancy was deemed to have resulted in a difference in patient management, i.e., a management-relevant discrepancy rate of 4.1% of the total study population. This analysis shows a higher interpretive discrepancy rate for emergency department interpretation of abdominal radiographs than has been reported with emergency department interpretations of other types of radiographs. The most common clinically relevant interpretive discrepancies were misinterpretation of intestinal obstruction and unrecognized urinary tract calculi. Presented at the 6th Annual Scientific Program, American Society of Emergency Radiology, Scottsdale, AZ, March 28, 1995.     

The role of face-to-face consultation in emergency radiology

To assess the impact of face-to-face exchange of clinical information between the radiologist and the emergency physician, a study was made of all plain films and computed tomograms (CTs) ordered in the Ohio State University Emergency Department between 11 am and 11 pm over a 4-week period. For each case, interpretations at three different times were recorded: (1) initial interpretation upon reception of the images, (2) interpretation after face-to-face discussion of clinical information with the emergency resident or attending physician, and (3) final interpretation after conferring with the attending radiologist. If any of the three interpretations differed in a given case, the case was flagged for review by a third attending radiologist to determine the clinical significance of the discrepancy. Cases which deviated from the standard model as described were excluded from the study. In total, 519 cases were ordered during the study period. Of which 231 (44.5 %) occurred in the standard order as described in the Methods section. Of these 231 cases, changes in diagnosis were observed in 31 (13 %) cases. In 12 (5.2 %) cases, the changes were judged to be clinically significant. In 19 (6 %) cases, the changes were judged to be clinically insignificant. The remaining 288 (55.5 %) cases diverged from the standard model described in our Methods section and were not included in our study. Of these, 93/519 (18 %) cases had only one interpretation because the resident radiologist, the emergency physician (resident and/or attending), and the attending radiologist were present for a single, simultaneous discussion. 77 (15 %) cases, there were only two interpretations because the initial interpretation occurred in the presence of both the resident radiologist and the emergency physician. In 69 (13 %) cases, there were two interpretations because the initial interpretation occurred in the presence of both the resident radiologist and the emergency physician. In 49 (9 %) cases, no face-to-face exchange between the resident radiologist and the emergency physician was recorded. Our data suggest that teleradiology's lack of face-to-face communication between the radiologist and the emergency physician may have an impact on the radiologic diagnosis, but only infrequently. Information contained in the images and the limited clinical history on the consult sheet appear to be sufficient for most purposes of radiologic interpretation.     

Night radiology

Night radiology is the practice of the in-hospital radiologist from 4:00 to 11:00 p.m. His duty is to keep the interpretation of radiographs current. At the medical center described, an average of 95 radiographic examinations per day are performed during the evening and at night; 60 of these require immediate interpretation. Night radiology was instituted because of the large number of unmonitored and uninterpreted films that had to be dealt with the following morning. The night radiology duty is seven consecutive nights and is rotated among all nine staff radiologists. Night radiology provides a service that the emergency department and the private physician can rely on and can use without hesitation, delay, or resistance.     

Interpretation of Emergency Department radiographs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display

OBJECTIVE: We determined the relative value of teleradiology and radiology resident coverage of the emergency department by measuring and comparing the effects of physician specialty, training level, and image display method on accuracy of radiograph interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of four faculty emergency medicine physicians, four emergency medicine residents, four faculty radiologists, and four radiology residents participated in our study. Each physician interpreted 120 radiographs, approximately half containing a clinically important index finding. Radiographs were interpreted using the original films and high-resolution digital monitors. Accuracy of radiograph interpretation was measured as the area under the physicians' receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve was 0.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.20) greater for radiologists than for emergency medicine physicians, 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for faculty than for residents, and 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for films than for video monitors. Using these results, we estimated that teleradiology coverage by faculty radiologists would add 0.09 (95% CI, 0.03-0.15) to the area under the ROC curve for radiograph interpretation by emergency medicine faculty alone, and radiology resident coverage would add 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02-0.14) to this area. CONCLUSION: We observed significant differences between the interpretation of radiographs on film and on digital monitors. However, we observed differences of equal or greater magnitude associated with the training level and physician specialty of each observer. In evaluating teleradiology services, observer characteristics must be considered in addition to the quality of image display.     

Emergency department image interpretation services at private community hospitals

PURPOSE: To investigate the methods used at private community hospitals for delivering emergency department (ED) image interpretation services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors contacted a random national sample of 114 hospitals by telephone and administered an "ED Radiology Coverage" questionnaire. The questionnaire included queries about daytime image interpretation duties, nighttime radiology coverage arrangements, and radiologist staffing needs. Results were stratified on the basis of ED patient volumes and trauma center designation and were analyzed statistically by using multivariate and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Representatives of 97 EDs responded to the questionnaire. Community hospital radiologists performed daytime primary interpretation of radiographs at 39 (40%) of 97 EDs, computed tomographic (CT) scans at 91 (95%) of 96 EDs, and ultrasonographic images at 87.5 (93%) of 94 EDs. "ED-dedicated" radiologists performed this emergency radiology work in only two (2%) of 97 EDs. During the nighttime, eight (8%) of 97 EDs had no radiology coverage, 80 (82%) of 97 EDs used teleradiology services in some form, and nine (9%) of 97 EDs employed in-house, rotating "non-ED-dedicated" radiologists. Analysis of participant responses revealed that clinicians at 37 (38%) of 97 EDs were able to consult radiologists for nighttime radiography questions, and 87 (92%) of 95 EDs had nighttime CT scans read by radiologists in time for patient care decisions. Twenty-four (25%) of 97 EDs reported radiologist staffing shortages, but only one indicated that it was actively trying to recruit ED-dedicated radiologists. Results of logistic regression analysis indicated that higher ED patient volumes (P =.005) and the presence of a trauma center (P =.02) each significantly increases the probability of higher nighttime levels of radiologist coverage. CONCLUSION: There is great variation in the current provision of emergency radiology services in private community hospitals.     

The “night stalker” effect: Are quality improvements with a dedicated night call rotation sustained?

The authors assessed whether the addition of a second-year diagnostic radiology resident assigned to cover the night shift at a major urban university hospital has a sustained effect on the number and clinical significance of “missed” radiologic findings. Radiographs interpreted overnight in the emergency department by radiology residents between January 1992 and December 1992 were reviewed daily by emergency radiology attending staff. A list of patients for whom there was a modification in the final radiologic interpretation was given to the emergency department physicians, who reviewed each case, scored the urgency of patient recall, and estimated the likelihood of patient morbidity attributable to the miss. The relative performance of after-hours residents was compared on the five nights per week with the dedicated night resident vs. the two nights per week without the dedicated night resident (control group). Of 22,295 after-hours examinations performed during the study period, 304 (1.36%) misses were recorded, nearly identical to the miss rate for the preceding 6 months. The percentage per examination interpreted (and number) of missed cases stratified by recall score for the control and dedicated night resident groups, respectively, were: (a) immediate, 0.62% (34) and 0.29% (49); (b) within 48 hours, 0.31% (17) and 0.32% (54); (c) no recall, 0.71% (24) and 0.29% (39); (d) finding already recognized by emergency department physicians, 0.44% (24) and 0.23% (39); total, 2.09% (114) and 1.13% (190). The difference in total discordance rates is statistically significant (P < 1 × 10⁻¹⁵). Our previously reported improvement in the quality of after-hours radiographic interpretation due to the addition of a dedicated night shift resident is sustained in a new group of residents. This confirms that the improvement is real and not a manifestation of the measurement methods.     

Underreporting of vertebral fractures on routine chest radiography

OBJECTIVE: Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and therefore undertreated. We determined the potential usefulness of chest radiography for detecting clinically important vertebral fractures by performing semiquantitative reviews and quantitative digital morphometry on 100 routine chest radiographs taken in the emergency department and comparing the yield of these independent reviews with official radiology reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred randomly selected chest radiographs of patients 60 years or older who presented to the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital were evaluated. Radiographs were selected without knowledge of the presenting complaint and were independently reviewed by two board-certified radiologists and a radiology resident. A validated semiquantitative method was used to assess lateral chest radiographs for vertebral fracture. In addition, quantitative digital morphometry was undertaken. A clinically important vertebral fracture was defined as one that was at least moderate to severe (loss of height >or=> 25%). RESULTS: Mean age of the population was 75 years, 47% were women, and 46% were admitted to the hospital. According to the reference radiologist, prevalence of moderate to severe vertebral fractures was 22%. Simple agreement was 87-88% among reviewers; kappa values were moderate (0.56-0.58). The greatest agreement was between the reference standard radiologist and quantitative digital morphometry (89% agreement; kappa = 0.67). Only 55% (12/22) of vertebral fractures we identified were mentioned in the official radiology reports. CONCLUSION: Chest radiography has potential as a screening tool for revealing previously undiagnosed vertebral fractures, although in this study only half of moderate to severe fractures that we identified were mentioned in official reports.     

Preliminary Reports in the Emergency Department: Is a Subspecialist Radiologist More Accurate Than a Radiology Resident?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether emergency department (ED) preliminary reports rendered by subspecialist attending radiologists who are reading outside their field of expertise are more accurate than reports rendered by radiology residents, and to compare error rates between radiologists and nonradiologists in the ED setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed at a large academic medical center with a busy ED. An electronic preliminary report generator was used in the ED to capture preliminary interpretations rendered in a clinical setting by radiology residents, junior attendings (within 2 years of taking their oral boards), senior attendings, and ED clinicians between August 1999 and November 2004. Each preliminary report was later reviewed by a final interpreting radiologist, and the preliminary interpretation was adjudicated for the presence of substantial discordances, defined as a difference in interpretation that might immediately impact the care of the patient. Of the 612,890 preliminary reports in the database, 65,780 (11%) met inclusion criteria for this study. A log-linear analysis was used to assess the effects of modality and type of author on preliminary report error rates. RESULTS: ED clinicians had significantly higher error rates when compared with any type of radiologist, regardless of modality. Within the radiologists, residents and junior attendings had lower error rates than did senior attendings, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Subspecialized attending radiologists who interpret ED examinations outside their area of expertise have error rates similar to those of radiology residents. Nonradiologists have significantly higher error rates than radiologists and radiology residents when interpreting examinations in the ED.     

Clinical trial of digital teleradiology in the practice of emergency room radiology

The application of digital teleradiology (DTR) to radiologic examinations performed in the emergency room was evaluated. A total of 919 examinations (ten computed tomographic; the rest, radiographic) were transmitted to a radiology resident at another hospital emergency room. The 512 X 512 images were reviewed by an attending radiologist and compared with another attending radiologist's interpretation of the original films. Cases with discrepant interpretations were analyzed. Inadequate DTR image quality was responsible for clinically significant discrepancies in 14 of 897 cases (1.6%) available for follow up. Problem areas such as the detection of pneumothorax and abdominal calcifications were identified. Retransmission of optically zoomed images of areas of concern and repeat radiographs of overpenetrated films are suggested to improve DTR performance.     

Emergency radiology services at medical schools in the United States.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. Little has been published on the delivery of emergency radiologic services in academic radiology training programs. METHODS. The author surveyed 127 medical schools in the United States concerning aspects of radiology services for their emergency rooms, including who interprets images, what training in emergency radiology is provided, and problems with film retrieval. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS. Emergency department radiographs most often are initially interpreted by a radiology resident and subsequently reviewed by a faculty radiologist who does not have a major interest in or time commitment to emergency radiology. Most schools describe problems such as disappearance of emergency department films and a paucity of provided clinical information. Only one third of schools provide formal instruction in emergency radiology for their radiology residents.     

Pediatric Emergency Imaging Studies in Academic Radiology Departments: A Nationwide Survey of Staffing Practices

ObjectiveParticularly for pediatric patients presenting with acute conditions or challenging diagnoses, identifying variation in emergency radiology staffing models is essential in establishing a standard of care. We conducted a cross-sectional survey among radiology departments at academic pediatric hospitals to evaluate staffing models for providing imaging interpretation for emergency department imaging requests.MethodsWe conducted an anonymous telephone survey of academic pediatric hospitals affiliated with an accredited radiology residency program across the United States. We queried the timing, location, and experience of reporting radiologists for initial and final interpretations of emergency department imaging studies, during weekday, overnight, and weekend hours. We compared weekday with overnight, and weekday with weekend, using Fisher’s exact test and an α of 0.05.ResultsSurveying 42 of 47 freestanding academic pediatric hospitals (89%), we found statistically significant differences for initial reporting radiologist, final reporting radiologist, and final report timing between weekday and overnight. We found statistically significant differences for initial reporting radiologist and final report timing between weekday and weekend. Attending radiologist involvement in initial reports was 100% during daytime, but only 33.3% and 69.0% during overnight and weekends. For initial interpretation during overnight and weekend, 38.1% and 28.6% use resident radiologists without attending radiologists, and 28.6% and 2.4% use teleradiology. All finalized reports as soon as possible during weekdays, but only 52.4% and 78.6% during overnight and weekend.DiscussionA minority of hospitals use 24-hour in-house radiology attending radiologist coverage. During overnight periods, the majority of academic pediatric emergency departments rely on resident radiologists without attending radiologist supervision or outside teleradiology services to provide initial reports. During weekend periods, over a quarter rely on resident radiologists without attending radiologist supervision for initial reporting. This demonstrates significant variation in staffing practices at academic pediatric hospitals. Future studies should look to determine whether this variation has any impact on standard of care.     

From Being a Radiologist to Watching a Radiologist: Impact of Filmless Operation on the Training of Radiology Residents

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors performed this study to investigate the impact of changing from a film-based image interpretation system to one using digital image workstations on the training of radiology residents in the interpretation of radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected during a period when a conventional system of image interpretation with hard-copy images and multiviewers was used and during a period when digital image workstations were used. During each period, it was noted whether the first interpretation of the radiographs was performed by a radiology resident, by an attending radiologist, or as a group effort including both an attending radiologist and a radiology resident(s). In addition, it was noted whether a radiology resident or an attending radiologist dictated the report. RESULTS: The proportion of images first interpreted by the radiology resident alone decreased from 38% (53 of 139) when using the conventional system to 17% (34 of 199) after the switch to interpreting images on the workstations (P = .001). During the film-based period, radiology residents dictated 45% of reports (141 of 312), but during the workstation period, radiology residents dictated only 4% of reports (24 of 667; P = .001). CONCLUSION: The authors observed a decrease in autonomous participation by radiology residents in image interpretation and dictation of reports and an increase in "group reading" after the switch from a film-based system to a workstation system.     

First year radiology residents not taking call: will there be a difference?

Currently, there is a debate in the academic radiology community about whether or not first year residents should take overnight call. The purpose of this study was to track discrepancies on overnight resident preliminary reads on radiographs from the emergency department to see if the experience level of the resident makes a difference. From October 1, 2005 to September 22, 2006, 13,213 radiographs were prospectively interpreted by residents at night at a Level I Trauma Center. Discrepancies were documented after review of the films with the staff radiologist in the morning. The patient’s medical record was then examined to determine if there was any adverse clinical outcome as a result of the reading. Of the 13,184 radiographs interpreted, 120 total discrepancies were identified (overall discrepancy rate 0.9%). First year residents showed a discrepancy rate of 1.59%, higher than other residents, which were ranged from 0.39 to 0.56%. Of the 54 patients with follow-up imaging, the abnormality that was felt to be present by staff persisted on follow-up imaging in 22 cases; however, the abnormality was not present on follow up of the other 32 patients (59.2% of discrepancies with follow-up imaging). Although there is higher rate of discrepancy among reports generated by first year residents, the difference compared to the other levels of experience is small, and its overall significance can be debated. Follow-up imaging often showed that staff interpretations were false positives when there was a discrepancy reported.     

Intraobserver and interobserver agreement of the interpretation of pediatric chest radiographs

The objective of this study is to quantify the magnitude of intraobserver and interobserver agreement among physicians for the interpretation of pneumonia on pediatric chest radiographs. Chest radiographs that produced discordant interpretations between the emergency physician and the radiologist's final interpretation were identified for patients aged 1–4 years. From 24 radiographs, eight were randomly selected as study radiographs, and 16 were diversion films. Study participants included two pediatric radiologists, two senior emergency medicine physicians, and two junior fellowship-trained pediatric emergency medicine physicians. Each test included 12 radiographs: the eight study radiographs and four randomly interspersed diversion radiographs, and each radiograph was paired with a written clinical vignette. Testing was repeated on four occasions, separated by ≥2 weeks. The dependent variable was the interpretation of presence or absence of pneumonia; primary analysis done with Cohen's kappa (95% confidence intervals). Intraobserver agreement was good for pediatric radiologists (kappa = 0.87; 95% CI 0.60–0.99) for both but was lower for senior emergency physicians (mean kappa = 0.68; 95% CI 0.40–0.95) and junior pediatric emergency physicians (mean kappa = 0.62; 95% CI 0.35–0.98). Interobserver agreement was fair to moderate overall; between pediatric radiologists, kappa = 0.51 (0.39–0.64); between senior emergency physicians, kappa = 0.55 (0.41–69), and between junior pediatric emergency medicine physicians, kappa = 0.37 (0.25–0.51). Practicing emergency clinicians demonstrate considerable intraobserver and interobserver variability in the interpretation of pneumonia on pediatric chest radiographs.     

A review of cervical-spine radiographs in casualty patients

This study reviews the radiographs and clinical case notes of 897 patients who attended the Accident and Emergency (A & E) Department of Leicester Royal Infirmary, over an 8-month period, for whom radiographs of the cervical spine were requested. The radiological interpretations by the casualty officers and junior radiologists in training were compared with those by a consultant radiologist and large discrepancies were observed. There was a predominance of fractures and subluxations at the levels of C1 and C2, and at C7 and T1. A study of the adequacy of the radiographs has shown that 90% of the lateral radiographs included C7 but only 57% included T1. Through-the-mouth views were adequate for interpretation in 67% of cases. The practice of the A & E and radiology departments at the Leicester Royal Infirmary is briefly described. The poor performance of the casualty officers and junior radiologists is discussed and suggestions made which might improve the accuracy of the radiological diagnosis of cervical-spine injuries in the A & E department.     

Part I: preparing first-year radiology residents and assessing their readiness for on-call responsibilities

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of an Emergency Radiology (ER) Core Curriculum training module and a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM)-based interactive examination system to prepare first-year (postgraduate year 2 [PGY-2]) radiology residents and assess their readiness for taking overnight radiology call. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained, and the study was compliant with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations. A dedicated month-long ER curriculum was designed to prepare new radiology residents for overnight radiology call that includes interpretation of off-hour urgent and emergent studies without immediate direct attending supervision. Lectures of the curriculum, provided by department staff, were based on the American Society of Emergency Radiology core curriculum. The lecture series was implemented after PGY-2 residents had completed formal introductory resident rotations during their first 6 months of training. A DICOM-based interactive computer-based testing module was developed and administered at the end of the lecture series. The module consisted of 19 actual emergency department cases with entire series of images, simulating an on-call setting. Tests were scored by two staff members blinded to resident identifying information. Upper-level residents also were tested, and comparison was made between first-year and upper-level resident test scores to determine the effectiveness of the test in determining first-year resident preparedness for call. Statistical analysis of results was performed by using t-test (P < .05). RESULTS: All residents in the residency program present during the month (nine PGY-2, six PGY-3, seven PGY-4, seven PGY-5 residents) attended the lecture series and finished the testing module at the end of the lecture series. Of 19 actual emergency cases on the testing module, five cases were neuroradiology, three cases were thoracic imaging, eight cases were body imaging, and three cases were musculoskeletal. PGY-2 residents scored an average of 73.0% (range, 63.2%-81.6%) of total points possible. PGY-3 residents scored an average of 76.8% (range, 68.4%-86.8%); PGY-4 residents scored an average of 77.4% (range, 65.8%-100%), and PGY-5 residents scored an average of 81.2% (range, 68.4%-94.7%). There was no statistically significant difference in scores according to level of training. CONCLUSION: First-year radiology residents who underwent 6 months of formal radiology training followed by an intensive ER lecture series before taking overnight call had scores similar to upper-level colleagues on an interactive computer-based ER simulation module.     

Radiology residents' on-call interpretation of chest radiographs for pneumonia

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study is designed to assess the performance of radiology residents in interpreting emergency department chest radiographs for pneumonia and to characterize chest radiographic findings in patients for which interpretation was amended by an attending radiologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all amended reports for chest radiographs performed on emergency department patients July 2002-June 2003. Reports preliminarily interpreted by residents and amended by a board-certified staff radiologist for the presence or absence of pneumonia were identified. A panel of three experienced radiologists, blinded to reports, jointly reviewed each chest radiograph. If the panel diagnosed pneumonia, the chest radiograph was evaluated for the projection that best showed the pneumonia, its size and location, and the presence or absence of the following features: increased opacity, air bronchograms, loss of vascular markings, silhouette sign, and linear opacities. The resident's post-graduate year (PGY) training level was noted. RESULTS: One percent (134/12,600 reports) of chest radiographic reports were amended for the presence or absence of pneumonia. One hundred chest radiographs were available and comprised the series. There were 56 females and 44 males with a mean age of 45 years (range, 1-99 years). The staff radiologist diagnosed pneumonia in 79% (79/100 radiographs). The panel agreed with the staff in 77% (kappa = 0.76) and the resident in 23% (kappa = 0.43). The panel diagnosed pneumonia in 60% (60/100 radiographs) with the following chest radiographic findings: 100% (60/60), increased opacity; 37% (22/60), air bronchograms; 72% (43/60), loss of vascular markings; 40% (24/60), silhouette sign; and 20% (12/60), linear opacities. The pneumonia was right sided in 52% (31/60), left sided in 37% (22/60), and bilateral in 11% (7/60). Right-sided pneumonias were equally distributed among the three lobes, and left-sided pneumonias had a lower-lobe predominance of 77% (17/22). Seventy-five percent (45/60) of pneumonias were segmental or smaller, and 82% (49/60) of chest radiographs showing pneumonia had both posteroanterior and lateral projections. The pneumonia was conspicuous on only one projection in 43% (21/49); the posteroanterior view in 22% (11/49), and the lateral view in 20% (10/49). Eighty-one percent (81/100) of interpreting residents were PGY-3. CONCLUSION: Interpretation of chest radiographs for pneumonia by PGY-3 residents has a low error rate. Missed pneumonias often were segmental or smaller and conspicuous on only one projection.     

Prevalence and clinical significance of misinterpretations of plain radiographs by orthopedic residents in a minor trauma emergency room

Purpose: (1) To determine the accuracy of interpretation of plain radiographs by orthopedic residents in a minor trauma emergency room, (2) to evaluate the clinical significance of misinterpretations for patient management, and (3) to evaluate the necessity of routine plain film review by a radiologist and an efficient patient recall system. Materials and methods: Our retrospective study evaluated discrepancies in plain film reading between orthopedic residents and radiologists. A total of 2283 radiographic examinations were evaluated for discrepancies. The medical records and X-rays in misinterpreted cases were assessed by a musculoskeletal radiologist and a staff orthopedist. The misinterpretations were categorized based on their clinical significance and influence on medical care. Misinterpretations which required immediate change in treatment or mandated further work-up were considered to have high clinical significance. Results: Forty-six (2 %) of the 2283 interpretations were defined as misinterpretations. Of the 46 cases, 27 (59 %) were missed fractures, 5 (11 %) were missed tumors, and 7 (15 %) were false positive readings of normal films. Twenty-one (46 %) of the misinterpretations had significant consequences. Forty-one percent of missed fractures had a high clinical significance, whereas only 14 % of false positive readings had a high clinical significance. Conclusion: The accuracy of plain film interpretation by orthopedic residents in the minor trauma setting is high (98 %). Nevertheless, 46 % of the misinterpretations have significant clinical consequences. This indicates that all emergency trauma films should be reviewed by an experienced radiologist, and an expedient method of informing the orthopedic department of any discrepancies in reading is recommended.     

Casualty X-ray reporting: a student survey

The radiographs of 337 patients attending the casualty department of a large teaching hospital were reviewed by two medical students of different seniority, a radiology registrar and a consultant radiologist. All the films had been examined initially by the casualty officer when the patient attended. The senior medical student reported the films more reliably than the junior student and was only slightly less reliable than the casualty officer. The radiology registrar was more accurate than the casualty officer where both reports could be compared with the consultant's opinion. Only rarely did the consultant radiologist disagree with the radiology registrar but in one patient this led to a change in management. The need for a radiological opinion has been confirmed.