Home teleconsultations with faculty subspecialists on chest images from an intensive care unit

Study objective: To determine whether teleconsultations by first-year radiology residents with faculty thoracic radiologists, using diagnostic-quality teleradiology workstations in the radiologists' homes, would add clinical value for the acute management of intensive care unit patients after regular working hours. Design and setting: First-year radiology residents recorded key findings on new computed chest radiographs from 173 cardiothoracic intensive care unit patients. After consulting with home-based thoracic radiologists on the same images via teleradiology, they recorded any revisions to their original interpretations. An interdisciplinary evaluation panel determined whether the revisions of the residents' initial readings after the teleradiology consultations would have influenced the acute clinical care of these patients. Measurements and results: In 119 of the 173 cases (69 %), differences in key findings on the chest images were observed between the first-year residents' preliminary readings and their revised readings after teleconsultation with a thoracic radiologist. The evaluation panel determined that the changes in key findings after the teleconsultations could have influenced acute patient care in 86 of the 173 cases (50 %). Conclusions: Through rapid teleradiology consultations with residents, focusing on the key findings on newly-obtained computed chest images, home-based thoracic radiologists provided information of added clinical value for the acute management of cardiothoracic intensive care unit patients in one-half of the cases studied. Diagnostic workstations in the homes of faculty subspecialists may enable first-year radiology residents on night or weekend duty to obtain clinical supervision from faculty subspecialists that approximates more closely the level of supervision that they receive during regular working hours.     

Radiology resident interpretations of on-call imaging studies: the incidence of major discrepancies

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of radiology resident preliminary interpretation errors for plain film, body computed tomography, and neuroradiology (neuro)computed tomographic examinations read on call. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data in a prospectively acquired resident quality assurance (QA) database dating between January 2000 and March 2007. The database comprises all imaging studies initially interpreted by an on-call resident and later reviewed by a board-certified attending radiologist who determined the level of discrepancy between the two interpretations according to a graded scale from 0 (no discrepancy) to 3 (major discrepancy). We reviewed the data with respect to resident training level, imaging modality, and variance level. Statistical analysis was performed with chi(2) test, alpha = 0.05. We compared our results with other published series studying resident and attending accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 141,381 cases were entered into the database during the review period. Of all examinations, 95.7% had zero variance, 3.3% minor variance, and 1.0% major variance. There was a slight, statistically significant increase in overall accuracy with increased resident year from 95.4% of examinations read by first-year residents (R1s) to 96.1% by fourth-year resident (R4s) (P < .0001). Overall percentages of exams with major discrepancies were 1.0% for R1s, 1.1% for second-year residents, 1.0% for third-year residents, and 0.98% for R4s. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of preliminary resident interpretations are highly accurate. The incidence of major discrepancies is extremely low and similar, even with R1s, to that of attending radiologists published in other studies. A slight, statistically significant decrease in the error rate is detectable as residents gain experience throughout the 4 years of residency.     

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.     

On-Call Radiology Resident Discrepancies: Categorization by Patient Location and Severity

PurposeTo report discrepancy rates for examinations interpreted by on-call residents overall and by resident training level, and to describe a novel discrepancy classification system based on patient location and severity that facilitates recording of discrepancy data, helps ensure proper communication of report changes, and allows our radiology department to assume responsibility for contacting discharged patients with non-time-dependent results.MethodsA HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board–exempt review of two years (January 2013 to December 2014) of discrepancy data was retrospectively performed for total number of examination interpreted, discrepancy rates, resident training level, and discrepancy categories. Most common diagnoses and means of results communication for discharged patients were also recorded.ResultsRadiology residents interpreted 153,420 examinations after hours and had 2169 discrepancies, for an overall discrepancy rate of 1.4%. Discrepancy rates for postgraduate year (PGY)-3, PGY-4, and PGY-5 residents were 1.31%, 1.65%, and 1.88%, respectively. The rate of critical discrepancies was extremely low (10/153,420 or 0.007%). A total of 502 patients (23.2% of all discrepancies) were discharged at the time their discrepancy was identified, 60% of whom had non-time-dependent discrepancies that were communicated by radiologists; 32.4% of these had addended results telephoned to a PCP, 43.4% had addended results telephoned to the patient, and the remaining 24.2% required a registered letter. Eight percent of patients with non-time-dependent findings were lost to follow-up.ConclusionsOur resident discrepancy rates were comparable to those published previously, with extremely low rates of critical discrepancies. Radiologists assumed responsibility for contacting the majority of discharged patients with discrepant results, a minority of whom were lost to follow-up.     

The DePICTORS Study: discrepancies in preliminary interpretation of CT scans between on-call residents and staff

At many academic hospitals, radiology residents provide preliminary interpretations of CT studies performed outside of regular working hours. We examined the rate of discrepancies between resident interpretations and final reports issued by staff. We prospectively obtained 1,756 preliminary reports and corresponding final reports for computed tomography (CT) scans performed on call between November 2006 and March 2007. The overall rate of clinically significant discrepancies (those that would potentially alter the patient’s clinical course prior to issue of the final report) was 2.0%. Major discrepancy rates for abdominal/pelvic, chest, cervical spine and head CT were 4.1%, 2.5%, 1.0% and 0.7%, respectively. Senior residents had fewer major discrepancies compared to their junior colleagues. Time of interpretation was also evaluated, but a statistically significant relationship was not observed. In summary, this study demonstrates a low discrepancy rate between residents and staff radiologists and identifies areas where after-hours service may be further improved.     

Discordance rates between preliminary and final radiology reports on cross-sectional imaging studies at a level 1 trauma center

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The goal was to determine discordance rates between preliminary radiology reports provided by on-call radiology house staff and final reports from attending radiologists on cross-sectional imaging studies requested by emergency department staff after hours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A triplicate carbon copy reporting form was developed to provide permanent records of preliminary radiology reports and to facilitate communication of discrepant results to the emergency department. Data were collected over 21 weeks to determine the number of discordant readings. Patients' medical records were reviewed to show whether discrepancies were significant or insignificant and to assess their impact on subsequent management and patient outcome. RESULTS: The emergency department requested 2830 cross-sectional imaging studies after hours and 2311 (82%) had a copy of the triplicate form stored in radiology archives. Discrepancies between the preliminary and final report were recorded in 47 (2.0%), with 37 (1.6%) considered significant: 14 patients needed no change, 13 needed a minor change, and 10 needed a major change in subsequent management. Ten (0.43%) of the discordant scans were considered insignificant. A random sample of 104 (20%) of the 519 scans without a paper triplicate form was examined. Seventy-one (68%) did have a scanned copy of the triplicate form in the electronic record, with a discrepancy recorded in 3 (4.2%), which was not statistically different from the main cohort (P = .18). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests a high level of concordance between preliminary reports from on-call radiology house staff and final reports by attending subspecialty radiologists on cross-sectional imaging studies requested by the emergency department.     

Preliminary interpretations of after-hours CT and sonography by radiology residents versus final interpretations by body imaging radiologists at a level 1 trauma center

OBJECTIVE: At many academic institutions, preliminary interpretations of CT scans and sonograms obtained after regular hours of operation are performed by radiology residents, with attending radiologists reviewing the interpretations the next morning. We sought to determine the rate of discrepancy between residents' interpretations of imaging studies and the final interpretations performed by an attending body imaging radiologist as well as any resulting clinical consequences stemming from the discrepancies. Therefore, we reviewed 928 CT and sonographic images that had been obtained after hours at a level 1 trauma center during a 6-month period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Any discrepancies between the preliminary and final interpretations were judged as either major (i.e., necessitating an urgent change in treatment) or minor errors. We conducted patient follow-up via a retrospective review of the medical charts to determine whether any of the discrepancies led to additional imaging, an increase in patient morbidity, an extension of a hospital stay, or a change in treatment. RESULTS: The overall discrepancy rate in interpretations rendered by the residents and those performed by the attending radiologist was 3.8%, with most of these discrepancies (86%) judged to be minor. If we combined the data for body CT scans and sonograms, the rate of minor discrepancies was 3.2%, and the rate of major discrepancies was 0.5%. If we considered only body CT data in the evaluation, the overall discrepancy rate increased to 6.4%, with a 5.4% rate of minor discrepancies and a 1.0% rate of major discrepancies. CONCLUSION: Our evaluation of discrepancy rates was unusual in that we included interpretations of sonograms, on which residents and the attending radiologist had a higher rate of agreement (99.5%). Because of the high agreement in the interpretation of sonograms, the overall discrepancy rate was 3.8%. However, if only body CT scan interpretations were evaluated, our results were closer to the rates reported in previously published studies. Major discrepancies led to a change in patient treatment but did not lead to any increase in patient morbidity or to any quantifiable increase in the length of the hospital stay.     

Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists

Objective

To assess the discrepancy rate for the interpretation of abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) examinations among experienced radiologists.

Methods

Ninety abdominal and pelvic CT examinations reported by three experienced radiologists who specialize in abdominal imaging were randomly selected from the radiological database. The same radiologists, blinded to previous interpretation, were asked to re-interpret 60 examinations: 30 of their previous interpretations and 30 interpreted by others. All reports were assessed for the degree of discrepancy between initial and repeat interpretations according to a three-level scoring system: no discrepancy, minor, or major discrepancy. Inter- and intrareader discrepancy rates and causes were evaluated.

Results

CT examinations included in the investigation were performed on 90 patients (43 men, mean age 59 years, SD 14, range 19–88) for the following indications: follow-up/evaluation of malignancy (69/90, 77%), pancreatitis (5/90, 6%), urinary tract stone (4/90, 4%) or other (12/90, 13%). Interobserver and intraobserver major discrepancy rates were 26 and 32%, respectively. Major discrepancies were due to missed findings, different opinions regarding interval change of clinically significant findings, and the presence of recommendation.

Conclusions

Major discrepancy of between 26 and 32% was observed in the interpretation of abdominal and pelvic CT examinations.     

US in blunt abdominal trauma: need to be there 24 hours a day!

Purpose: To evaluate the utility of routine abdominal ultrasound (US) as first diagnostic imaging method 24 h a day in a series of patients admitted with blunt abdominal trauma to our level II trauma center. Methods: Two thousand four hundred and eleven consecutive patients admitted after blunt abdominal trauma over 12 months were prospectively evaluated using abdominal US. The examinations were performed within 25 min after admission. An experienced senior radiologist was available on site 24 h a day (including holidays) to perform all the US examinations. The US examination included a full abdominal exploration. The US results were compared to findings at computed tomography (n = 115), clinical follow-up (n = 2244), or surgery (n = 47). Results: Overall, 2411 US abdominal studies were performed. In 5/2411 (0.2 %) patients, the US examinations were incomplete or indeterminate because of patient obesity and were therefore excluded from the study. Of the remaining 2406 US studies, 265 (11 %) were performed between 0 and 6 a.m., 770 (32 %) were performed between 6 a.m. and 12 midday, 673 (28 %) were performed between 12 midday. and 6 p.m., and the remaining 698 (29 %) were performed between 6 and 12 p.m. At US, the following post-traumatic injuries were correctly detected: 67 splenic lesions, 62 liver injuries, 13 renal contusions, 2 bowel lacerations, and 1 pancreatic injury. Nineteen patients had a sonogram with negative findings followed by CT with positive findings, while 18 patients had a sonogram with positive findings followed by CT with negative findings. The following rates were calculated for the US studies: true negative = 2224; true positive = 145; false positive = 18; false negative = 19; sensitivity = 88.4 %; specificity = 99.2 %; diagnostic accuracy = 98.2 %; positive predictive index = 88.9 %; negative predictive index = 99.1 %. Conclusion: Abdominal US provides a highly accurate, noninvasive imaging evaluation in patients who have sustained blunt abdominal trauma. This can be obtained particularly if a team of senior radiologists can perform the examination to provide high quality sonograms and be on site 24 h a day.     

24/7/365 Neuroradiologist Coverage Improves Resident Perception of Educational Experience,Referring Physician Satisfaction,and Turnaround Time

PurposeTo quantitatively and qualitatively assess the impact of attending neuroradiology coverage on radiology resident perceptions of the on-call experience, referring physician satisfaction, and final report turnaround times.Materials and Methods24/7/365 attending neuroradiologist coverage began in October 2016 at our institution. In March 2017, an online survey of referring physicians, (emergency medicine, neurosurgery, and stroke neurology) and radiology residents was administered at a large academic medical center. Referring physicians were queried regarding their perceptions of patient care, report accuracy, timeliness, and availability of attending radiologists before and after the implementation of overnight neuroradiology coverage. Radiology residents were asked about their level of independence, workload, and education while on-call. Turnaround time (TAT) was measured over a 5-month period before and after the implementation of overnight neuroradiology coverage.ResultsA total of 28 of 64 referring physicians surveyed responded, for a response rate of 67%. Specifically, 19 of 23 second (junior resident on-call) and third year radiology residents (senior resident on-call) replied, 4 of 4 stroke neurology fellows replied, 8 of 21 neurosurgery residents, and 16 of 39 emergency medicine residents replied. Ninety-five percent of radiology residents stated they had adequate independence on call, 100% felt they have enough faculty support while on call, and 84% reported that overnight attending coverage has improved the educational value of their on-call experience. Residents who were present both before and after the implementation of TAT metrics thought their education, and independence had been positively affected. After overnight neuroradiology coverage, 85% of emergency physicians perceived improved accuracy of reports, 69% noted improved timeliness, and 77% found that attending radiologists were more accessible for consultation. The surveyed stroke neurology fellows and neurosurgery residents reported positive perception of the TAT, report quality, and availability of accessibility of attending radiologist.ConclusionsIn concordance with prior results, overnight attending coverage significantly reduced turnaround time. As expected, referring physicians report increased satisfaction with overnight attending coverage, particularly with respect to patient care and report accuracy. In contrast to some prior studies, radiology residents reported both improved educational value of the on-call shifts and preserved independence. This may be due to the tasking the overnight neuroradiology attending with dual goals of optimized TAT, and trainee growth. Unique implementation including subspecialty trained attendings may facilitate radiology resident independence and educational experience with improved finalized report turnaround.     

Emergency imaging discrepancy rates at a level 1 trauma center: identifying the most common on-call resident “misses”

The focus of our research is to identify the most frequently reported on-call discrepancies at our hospital by modality and level of resident training. Our intent is to identify specific areas of concern that may be amenable to improvement through initiation of dedicated resident training in the field of emergency radiology. Our study included 648 significant discrepancies from 193,722 studies ordered through the emergency department over a 7-year period. The overall discrepancy rates were calculated for each resident level of training and modality type. Significance was determined using χ2 testing with α?=?0.05. The most common types of discrepancies were identified. The overall rate of reported discrepancies was low for all levels of training (0.23–0.42 %) with a small, but statistically significant, decrease in rate for the senior residents. Common categories of discrepancies for all residents included fractures on radiographs (XR) and computed tomography (CT), masses and hemorrhage on CT, and lung nodules and pulmonary infiltrates on radiographs. Specific discrepancies reported more frequently for new call-takers included phalangeal fractures on XR as well as white matter disease, hepatic lacerations, pyelonephritis, peritoneal fluid, lymphadenopathy, and pneumothoraces on CT. It is our recommendation that radiology resident training programs ensure that the common discrepancies illustrated herein are specifically addressed as part of a dedicated emergency radiology course.     

Incidental findings on trauma ultrasonography

Purpose: To determine the prevalence of incidental findings detected on the focused abdominal sonogram for trauma. Methods: From November 1996 to February 1998, 1914 radiologist-assisted trauma ultrasound examinations were performed. Incidental findings were tabulated by retrospective review of the trauma radiology daily logbooks. Results: Incidental nontraumatic findings were detected in 160 (8.36 %) of the acutely injured patients. Most findings were benign, including echogenic liver, renal cysts, and cholelithiasis. However, significant pathology was detected in several patients, including renal masses, hepatic metastases, and gynecologic disease. Conclusion: The radiologist-assisted trauma ultrasound examination can provide valuable diagnostic information beyond the detection of free fluid. This may have important implications, as nonradiologists are increasingly involved in the practice of trauma ultrasonography. Even in the setting of trauma, significant occult pathology can be detected on a targeted ultrasound examination.     

Ensuring Appropriateness of Pediatric Second Opinion Consultations

PurposeWe sought to evaluate discrepancy rates between outside interpretations, radiology trainee preliminary reports, and subspecialist attending final interpretations for pediatric second opinion consultations on plain film and computed tomography imaging and to evaluate the impact of a process improvement for second opinion consultations.MethodsOf a total of 572 requests for second opinion consultations during 1-year preintervention period, we utilized RADPEER to score concurrence of 158 requests which occurred overnight and included outside radiologist interpretations and resident preliminary reports. In consultation with clinician committees, we developed new guidelines for requesting second opinion consultations. We evaluated the impact on the number of consultations for the 1-year period following implementation of this process improvement.ResultsThere was concurrence between the outside interpretation and pediatric subspecialist second opinion in 146 of 158 cases (92%). There was concurrence between the radiology resident and pediatric subspecialist second opinion in 145 of 158 cases (92%). During the 1-year period following our process improvement implementation, the total number of second opinion consultations decreased to 185 (from 572, a decrease of 68%) and the number of overnight requests for resident preliminary reports decreased to 11 (from 158, a decrease of 93%).ConclusionsThere was a high degree of concurrence between interpretations provided by outside radiologists, overnight radiology residents, and attending pediatric radiologists at our institution. Analyzing institutional-specific discrepancy rates is a valuable first step in partnering with clinicians to develop appropriate guidelines for second opinion consultations.     

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.     

Vetting requests for body computed tomography

The aim of this study was to assess the process and outcome of hospitalised patients (inpatients) for whom whole-body CT was requested but not performed. For 6 months the reasons why CT was not performed were recorded, together with relevant discussions with clinicians. Subsequent referrals for alternative investigations were noted. The eventual outcome of the patients was monitored via the patients' records. Eighty-three (8 %) of 1001 inpatient requests were identified for which body CT was not performed after an electronically generated request. Fifty-five requests were not accepted by the radiology department during the vetting process for a variety of reasons (often more than one): criteria used for rejection often overlapped and included referrals outside national guidelines (n = 20), better alternative investigations (n = 29), time constraints (n = 19), over-zealous requests (n = 17) and clinicians' erroneous interpretation of preceding imaging investigations (n = 9). Sixteen CT exams were cancelled by a clinician. An additional 12 exams were not performed for miscellaneous non-medical reasons. In no case could a patient's death be ascribed to CT not being performed. Most (981 of 1001, 98 %) CT requests comply with current guidelines, disproving a perception that many radiological referrals are inappropriate. In our health care system radiologists have to turn down some appropriate CT referrals due to a lack of CT capacity. Although lack of CT contributed to delay in diagnosis, no patient died as a direct result of not having CT. Received: 15 June 1999; Revised: 4 October 1999; Accepted: 5 October 1999     

In-Person Communication Between Radiologists and Acute Care Surgeons Leads to Significant Alterations in Surgical Decision Making

PurposeThe aim of this study was to determine if direct in-person communication between an acute care surgical team and radiologists alters surgical decision making.MethodsInformed consent was waived for this institutional review board-exempt, HIPAA-compliant, prospective quality improvement study. From January 29, 2015 to December 10, 2015, semiweekly rounds lasting approximately 60 min were held between the on-call acute care surgery team (attending surgeon, chief resident, and residents) and one of three expert abdominal radiologists. A comprehensive imaging review was performed of recent and comparison examinations for cases selected by the surgeons in which medical and/or surgical decision making was pending. All reviewed examinations had available finalized reports known to the surgical team. RADPEER interradiologist concordance scores were assigned to all reviewed examinations. The impression and plan of the attending surgeon were recorded before and after each in-person review.ResultsOne hundred patients were reviewed with 11 attending surgeons. The in-person meetings led to changes in surgeons’ diagnostic impressions in 43% (43 of 100) and changes in medical and/or surgical planning in 43% (43 of 100; 20 acute changes, 23 nonacute changes, 19 changes in operative management) of cases. There were major discrepancies (RADPEER score ≥3) between the impression of the reviewing radiologist and the written report in 11% of cases (11 of 100).ConclusionsTargeted in-person collaboration between radiologists and acute care surgeons is associated with substantial and frequent changes in patient management, even when the original written report contains all necessary data. The primary mechanism seems to be promotion of a shared mental model that facilitates the exchange of complex information.     

Significance of backboard artifacts on portable trauma series chest radiographs

Purpose: To evaluate the degree to which the artifacts created by the radio-opaque components of a backboard obscure the findings on the initial trauma series chest radiograph (BBCXR). Methods: We reviewed 40 consecutive trauma victims admitted to our level I trauma center over a 3-month period who underwent a follow-up portable supine chest radiograph (PCXR) off the backboard no longer than 1 h after the initial trauma BBCXR. The original interpretation of the BBCXR was compared to the reading of the PCXR as well as to a retrospective analysis of the BBCXR performed by two radiologists blinded as to the findings on the original report. Results: The initial interpretation of the BBCXR failed to identify abnormalities reported in the follow-up PCXR of 10 individuals (25 %), most frequently bone fractures, misplaced hardware, and pleural effusions. Of these missed abnormalities, 80 % were identified retrospectively. Conversely, the initial reading of the BBCXR described a widened mediastinum in five cases, right upper lobe opacities in two, and cardiomegaly in one. Of these eight reported findings, only five (63 %) – the cardiomegaly and four of the mediastinal abnormalities – were also reported upon retrospective analysis, while the PCXR taken with the patient off the backboard confirmed widened mediastinum in only three cases. Conclusions: The initial, often hurried reading of a portable chest radiograph taken on a backboard as part of a trauma series often misses significant pathology, most of which can be detected upon more thorough examination of the original film. The backboard also tends to magnify mediastinal structures more than routine PCXR. Therefore, we advocate a more cautious analysis of the original BBCXR and routine utilization of a follow-up PCXR to confirm mediastinal abnormalities.     

Radiology resident interpretation of on-call CT pulmonary angiograms

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the interpretation of computed tomographic pulmonary angiograms performed outside of regular reporting hours, comparing the initial interpretation by the radiology resident to the attending radiologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records for 840 consecutive computed tomographic pulmonary angiograms (CTPA) performed outside of regular reporting hours at two tertiary referral centers from January 1, 2004-December 31, 2005 were reviewed. The preliminary interpretation by the on-call radiology resident was compared to the subsequent final report issued by a subspecialty trained chest radiologist. Studies were stratified as positive, negative, or equivocal for pulmonary embolus. Cases with discordant interpretations or negative CTPA were reviewed to determine impact on clinical outcome. Patients were followed up to 12 months after CTPA to document any subsequent thromboembolic event. RESULTS: Sixteen percent (131/840) of CTPAs were reported positive by the staff radiologist. There was agreement in 90% (752/840) of studies (P = .76, 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.81) with 86% (114/133) agreement for studies interpreted as positive by residents, 95% (582/612) for studies interpreted as negative by residents, and 63% (60/95) for studies interpreted as equivocal by residents. Studies of optimal quality had higher interobserver agreement than studies of suboptimal quality (P < .0001). In-patient studies were more likely to be positive than emergency room patients (20% vs. 13%) (P = .004). No adverse clinical outcomes were attributed to discordant interpretations. CONCLUSIONS: Radiology residents provide a high level interpretation of on-call CTPA studies, achieving good concordance with the attending radiologists' assessment.     

Factors affecting attending agreement with resident early readings of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the head, neck, and spine

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study examines the joint effect of several factors on radiology resident performance in the task of interpreting after-hours neuroradiology examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As part of a quality assessment process, we conducted a prospective evaluation of all (N = 21,796) after-hours preliminary readings of neuroradiology examinations performed by radiology residents over a 62-month period at our academic medical center. Each reading was scored by the interpreting neuroradiologist as "agree," "disagree with minimal clinical impact," and "disagree with significant clinical impact." Coded resident and attending identities were also recorded for each case along with modality, body area studied, and the date of examination. These raw data were used to create an analytic data set with level of resident/attending agreement as the outcome and six predictors, including two date-derived variables: months 1-62 representing when the case occurred during the study and quartiles 1-4 accounting for the timing of the case in each resident's own experience. Cross tabulations, plots, bivariate statistics, and logistic regression were used to examine the relationships between study variables and the outcome (level of agreement). RESULTS: Over about 5 years of the study, the absolute number of significant disagreements remained stable at about three per month. The total caseload increased at a rate of 4.1 per month with most of the increase falling into the agree category, whereas the minimal disagreements actually decreased slightly (0.2 per month). In the logistic model for disagreement, three of the factors accounted for most of the variance: attending (61%), resident (15%), and month (15%). Study type (modality and area examined) accounted for another 10%. There was no significant contribution from the variable (quartile) constructed to test for individual resident learning during the on-call experience. CONCLUSION: Although residents differ somewhat in the extent of attending agreement with their on-call work, evaluation or remediation made on the basis of simple comparison of these rates should be done with caution. Improved agreement over time seems to be a collective experience shared by residents.     

Gastrointestinal perforation: ultrasound diagnosis

Purpose: To investigate the spectrum of US findings as encountered in a consecutive series of patients referred with clinically suspected gastrointestinal perforation. Methods: Seventy-two consecutive patients (mean age: 42.9 years) with clinically suspected gastrointestinal perforation were prospectively examined with abdominal ultrasound (US). The US examinations were all performed by a certified senior radiologist, who was blind to other imaging findings. Patients were screened for the presence of free intraperitoneal gas (characteristic comet-tail artifacts, ring-down artifacts, and the “shifting phenomenon” were our diagnostic indicators of pneumoperitoneum). Other signs potentially suggestive of gastrointestinal perforation were also looked for, including free intraperitoneal fluid, thickening of bowel walls, gallbladder walls, gastric walls, or duodenal walls, or local peritoneal inflammation. Patients with equivocal or inconclusive findings on US were submitted to abdominal computed tomography (CT) 10–15 min after US examinations. Results: Of the 72 patients prospectively examined by US, 63 (87.5 %) underwent subsequent emergent surgery within next 2 days. A gastrointestinal perforation was found in all the 63 patients referred for operative treatment: overall, 41 gastroduodenal and 22 intestinal perforations were found. On US, in the 41 patients with surgically proven gastroduodenal perforation, the most common finding was free intraperitoneal gas (28/41, 68.3 %). The 13/41 patients (31.7 %) without evidence of free gas on US underwent preoperative abdominal CT assessment, which allowed the correct diagnosis of gastroduodenal perforation in 12/13 cases. In the 22 patients with surgically proven intestinal perforation the most common finding detected on US was free intraperitoneal fluid (14/22, 63.6 %); sonographic evidence of free intraperitoneal gas was seen in only 8/22 patients (36.4 %). The 14/22 patients (63.6 %) without free gas on US underwent preoperative abdominal CT assessment, which allowed the diagnosis of intestinal perforation in 12/14 cases. Conclusion: US examinations allow very rapid screening of patients referred with clinically suspected gastrointestinal perforation and for triage of patients who are to undergo more invasive imaging tests.