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.     

Overnight resident preliminary interpretations on CT Examinations: should the process continue?

We report our experience with resident preliminary interpretations given at night on both abdominal and neurological CT scans to quantify the discrepancy rate when compared to the final report. An attempt was also made to document any adverse clinical outcomes as a result of the preliminary interpretation. From January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004, adult CT examinations were prospectively interpreted by residents at night at a level I trauma center. Both the neurological and body CT scans were reviewed beginning at 7:00 a.m. the following morning by the respective subspecialty staff and discrepancies were noted. Adult CT examinations (6,858) were prospectively interpreted by residents: 5,206 cranial spinal CT examinations and 1,652 body CT examinations. Among the neurological studies, there were six cases identified as major discrepancies (0.1%) and 185 minor discrepancies (3.5%). Among the body CT cases, there were seven cases identified as major discrepancies (0.4%) and 23 cases of minor discrepancies (1.4%). There is a low discrepancy rate (0.2% major and 3.1% minor) in the preliminary resident interpretations from the final report. The process of overnight preliminary CT interpretations should continue as it is not substandard care.Presented at the American Society of Emergency Radiology 2005 Annual Meeting, Tucson, Arizona.     

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.     

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.     

Radiology Resident Preliminary Reporting in an Independent Call Environment: Multiyear Assessment of Volume,Timeliness, and Accuracy

PurposeThe objective of this paper is to assess the volume, accuracy, and timeliness of radiology resident preliminary reports as part of an independent call system. This study seeks to understand the relationship between resident year in training, study modality, and discrepancy rate.MethodsResident preliminary interpretations on radiographs, ultrasound, CT, and MRI from October 2009 through December 2013 were prospectively scored by faculty on a modified RADPEER scoring system. Discrepancy rates were evaluated based on postgraduate year of the resident and the study modality. Turnaround times for reports were also reviewed. Differences between groups were compared with a chi-square test with a significance level of 0.05. Institutional review board approval was waived as only deidentified data were used in the study.ResultsA total of 416,413 studies were reported by 93 residents, yielding 135,902 resident scores. The rate of major resident–faculty assessment discrepancies was 1.7%. Discrepancy rates improved with increasing experience, both overall (PGY-3: 1.8%, PGY-4: 1.7%, PGY-5: 1.5%) and for each individual modality. Discrepancy rates were highest for MR (3.7%), followed by CT (2.4%), radiographs (1.4%), and ultrasound (0.6%). Emergency department report turnaround time averaged 31.7 min. The average graduating resident has been scored on 2,746 ± 267 reports during residency.ConclusionsResident preliminary reports have a low rate of major discrepancies, which improves over 3 years of call-taking experience. Although more complex cross-sectional studies have slightly higher discrepancy rates, discrepancies were still within the range of faculty report variation.     

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.     

Clinical consequences of misinterpretations of neuroradiologic CT scans by on-call radiology residents

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Studies have looked at the accuracy of radiologic interpretations by radiology residents as compared with staff radiologists with regard to emergency room plain films, emergency room body CT scans, and trauma head CT scans; however, to our knowledge, no study has evaluated on-call resident interpretations of all types of neuroradiologic CT scans. Both as a part of our departmental quality control program and to address concerns of clinical services about misinterpretation of neuroradiologic CT scans by on-call radiology residents, we evaluated the frequency of incorrect preliminary interpretations of neuroradiologic CT scans by on-call radiology residents and the effect of such misinterpretations on clinical management and patient outcome. METHODS: As determined by the staff neuroradiologist the next day, all potentially clinically significant changes to preliminary reports of emergency neuroradiologic CT scans rendered by on-call radiology residents were recorded over a 9-month period. A panel of neuroradiologists reviewed and graded all the changed cases by consensus. An emergency department staff physician reviewed medical records of all submitted cases to determine clinical consequences of the misinterpretations. RESULTS: Significant misinterpretations were made in 21 (0.9%) of 2388 cases during the study period. There was a significant change in patient management in 12 of the cases, with a potentially serious change in patient outcome in two cases (0.08%). CONCLUSION: On-call radiology residents have a low rate of significant misinterpretations of neuroradiologic CT scans, and the potential to affect patient outcome is rare.     

Comparing Preliminary and Final Neuroradiology Reports: What Factors Determine the Differences?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Trainees'' interpretations of neuroradiologic studies are finalized by faculty neuroradiologists. We aimed to identify the factors that determine the degree to which the preliminary reports are modified.MATERIALS AND METHODS:The character length of the preliminary and final reports and the percentage character change between the 2 reports were determined for neuroradiology reports composed during November 2012 to October 2013. Examination time, critical finding flag, missed critical finding flag, trainee level, faculty experience, imaging technique, and native-versus-non-native speaker status of the reader were collected. Multivariable linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between mean percentage character change and the various factors.RESULTS:Of 34,661 reports, 2322 (6.7%) were read by radiology residents year 1; 4429 (12.8%), by radiology residents year 2; 3663 (10.6%), by radiology residents year 3; 2249 (6.5%), by radiology residents year 4; and 21,998 (63.5%), by fellows. The overall mean percentage character change was 14.8% (range, 0%–701.8%; median, 6.6%). Mean percentage character change increased for a missed critical finding (+41.6%, P < .0001), critical finding flag (+1.8%, P < .001), MR imaging studies (+3.6%, P < .001), and non-native trainees (+4.2%, P = .018). Compared with radiology residents year 1, radiology residents year 2 (−5.4%, P = .002), radiology residents year 3 (−5.9%, P = .002), radiology residents year 4 (−8.2%, P < .001), and fellows (−8.7%; P < .001) had a decreased mean percentage character change. Senior faculty had a lower mean percentage character change (−6.88%, P < .001). Examination time and non-native faculty did not affect mean percentage character change.CONCLUSIONS:A missed critical finding, critical finding flag, MR imaging technique, trainee level, faculty experience level, and non-native-trainee status are associated with a higher degree of modification of a preliminary report. Understanding the factors that influence the extent of report revisions could improve the quality of report generation and trainee education.

Understanding the prevalence, causes, and types of discrepancies and errors in examination interpretation is a critical step in improving the quality of radiology reports. In an academic setting, discrepancies and errors can result from nonuniform training levels of residents and fellows. However, even the “experts” err, and a prior study found a 2.0% clinically significant discrepancy rate among academic neuroradiologists.¹ A number of factors can affect the accuracy of radiology reports. One variable of interest at teaching hospitals is the effect of the involvement of trainees on discrepancies in radiology reports. Researchers have found that compared with studies read by faculty alone, the rate of clinically significant detection or interpretation error was 26% higher when studies were initially reviewed by residents, and it was 8% lower when the studies were initially interpreted by fellows.² These findings suggest that perhaps faculty placed too much trust in resident interpretations, which led to a higher rate of discrepancies, while on the other hand, having a second experienced neuroradiology fellow look at a case can help in reducing the error rate.²In our academic setting, preliminary reports initially created by trainees are subsequently reviewed and finalized by faculty or staff. The changes made to preliminary reports are a valuable teaching tool for trainees because clear and accurate report writing is a critical skill for a radiologist.³ Recently, computer-based tools have been created to help trainees compare the changes between preliminary and final reports to improve their clinical skills and to facilitate their learning. Sharpe et al⁴ described the implementation of a Radiology Report Comparator, which allows trainees to view a merged preliminary/final report with all the insertions and deletions highlighted in “tracking” mode. Surrey et al⁵ proposed using the Levenshtein percentage or percentage character change (PCC) between preliminary and final reports as a quantitative method of indirectly assessing the quality of preliminary reports and trainee performance. The Levenshtein percentage, a metric used in computer science, compares 2 texts by calculating the total number of single-character changes between the 2 documents, divided by the total character count in the final text.⁵In this study, we analyzed preliminary neuroradiology reports dictated by trainees and the subsequent finalized reports revised by our faculty. We set out to identify the factors that determine the degree to which the preliminary reports are modified by faculty for residents and fellows, for daytime and nighttime shifts, and for CT and MR imaging examinations. We hypothesized that study complexity, lack of experience (for both trainee and faculty), and perhaps limited language skills (native-versus-non-native speaker) would result in a greater number of corrections.     

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.     

Radiology resident evaluation of head CT scan orders in the emergency department

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prior studies have revealed little difference in residents' abilities to interpret cranial CT scans. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of radiology residents at different levels of training in the interpretation of emergency head CT images. METHODS: Radiology residents prospectively interpreted 1324 consecutive head CT scans ordered in the emergency department at the University of Arizona Health Science Center. The residents completed a preliminary interpretation form that included their interpretation and confidence in that interpretation. One of five neuroradiologists with a Certificate of Added Qualification subsequently interpreted the images and classified their assessment of the residents' interpretations as follows: "agree," "disagree-insignificant," or "disagree-significant." The data were analyzed by using analysis-of-variance or chi-squared methods. RESULTS: Overall, the agreement rate was 91%; the insignificant disagreement rate, 7%; and the significant disagreement rate, 2%. The level of training had a significant (P =.032) effect on the rate of agreement; upper-level residents had higher rates of agreement than those of more junior residents. There were 62 false-negative findings. The most commonly missed findings were fractures (n = 18) and chronic ischemic foci (n = 12). The most common false-positive interpretations involved 10 suspected intracranial hemorrhages and suspected fractures. CONCLUSION: The level of resident training has a significant effect on the rate of disagreement between the preliminary interpretations of emergency cranial CT scans by residents and the final interpretations by neuroradiologists. Efforts to reduce residents' errors should focus on the identification of fractures and signs of chronic ischemic change.     

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.     

Overnight preliminary head CT interpretations provided by residents: locations of misidentified intracranial hemorrhage

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our aim was to determine the patterns of error of radiology residents in the detection of intracranial hemorrhage on head CT examinations while on call. Follow-up studies were reviewed to determine if there was any adverse effect on patient outcome as a result of these preliminary interpretations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiology residents prospectively interpreted 22,590 head CT examinations while on call from January 1, 2002, to July 31, 2006. The following morning, the studies were interpreted by staff neuroradiologists, and discrepancies from the preliminary report were documented. Patients' charts were reviewed for clinical outcomes and any imaging follow-up. RESULTS: There were a total of 1037 discrepancies identified, of which 141 were due to intracranial hemorrhage. The most common types of intracranial hemorrhage that were missed were subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage occurring in 39% and 33% of the cases, respectively. The most common location for missed subdural hemorrhage was either parafalcine or frontal. The most common location of missed subarachnoid hemorrhage was in the interpeduncular cistern. There was 1 case of nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage that was not described in the preliminary report. Fourteen patients were brought back to the emergency department for short-term follow-up imaging after being discharged. We did not observe any adverse clinical outcomes that resulted from a discrepant reading. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies due to intracranial hemorrhage are usually the result of subdural or subarachnoid hemorrhage. A more complete understanding of the locations of the missed hemorrhage can hopefully help decrease the discrepancy rate to help improve patient care.     

Academic radiology and the emergency department: does it need changing?

RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVES: The increasing importance of imaging for both diagnosis and management in patient care has resulted in a demand for radiology services 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, especially in the emergency department (ED). We hypothesized the resident preliminary reports were better than generalist radiology interpretations, although inferior to subspecialty interpretations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total radiology volume through our Level I pediatric and adult academic trauma ED was obtained from the radiology information system. We conducted a literature search for error and discordant rates between radiologists of varying experience. For a 2-week prospective period, all preliminary reports generated by the residents and final interpretations were collected. Significant changes in the report were tabulated. RESULTS: The ED requested 72,886 imaging studies in 2004 (16% of the total radiology department volume). In a 2-week period, 12 of 1929 (0.6%) preliminary reports by residents were discordant to the final subspecialty dictation. In the 15 peer-reviewed publications documenting error rates in radiology, the error rate between American Board of Radiology (ABR)-certified radiologists is greater than that between residents and subspecialists in the literature and in our study. However, the perceived error rate by clinicians outside radiology is significantly higher. CONCLUSION: Sixteen percent of the volume of imaging studies comes through the ED. The residents handle off-hours cases with a radiology-detected error rate below the error rate between ABR-certified radiologists. To decrease the perceived clinician-identified error rate, we need to change how academic radiology handles ED cases.     

Evaluation of emergency CT scans of the head: is there a community standard?

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to assess the accuracy of general radiologists in the interpretation via teleradiology of emergency CT scans of the head. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied the interpretations of 716 consecutive emergency CT scans of the head by a group of 15 board-certified general radiologists practicing in the community (as opposed to an academic setting). The scans were sent via teleradiology, and the preliminary interpretations were made. Three of the general radiologists were functioning as nighthawks, and the remaining 12 were acting as on-call radiologists in addition to their normal daytime duties. Each CT examination was interpreted by one of five neuroradiologists the day after the initial interpretation had been performed. The findings of the final interpretation and the preliminary interpretation were categorized as showing agreement, insignificant disagreement, or significant disagreement. The reports in the two categories indicating disagreement were reviewed and reclassified by a consensus of three university-based neuroradiologists. RESULTS: Agreement between the initial interpretation by the general radiologist and the final interpretation by the neuroradiologist was found in 95% of the CT scans. The interpretations were judged to show insignificant disagreement in 3% (23/716) of the scans and to show significant disagreement in 2% (16/716). Of the 16 significant errors, five were false-positive findings and 11 were false-negative findings. Forty-seven CT scans depicted significant or active disease, and in 11 (23%) of these scans, the final report differed significantly from the preliminary interpretation. Three patients had pituitary masses, none of which had been described on the preliminary interpretation. CONCLUSION: The rate of significant discordance between board-certified on-call general radiologists and neuroradiologists in the interpretation of emergency CT scans was 2%, which was comparable to previously published reports of residents' performance. The pituitary gland may be a blind spot, and additional attention should be focused on this area.     

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.     

Overnight shift work: factors contributing to diagnostic discrepancies

The aims of the study are to identify factors contributing to preliminary interpretive discrepancies on overnight radiology resident shifts and apply this data in the context of known literature to draw parallels to attending overnight shift work schedules. Residents in one university-based training program provided preliminary interpretations of 18,488 overnight (11 pm–8 am) studies at a level 1 trauma center between July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014. As part of their normal workflow and feedback, attendings scored the reports as major discrepancy, minor discrepancy, agree, and agree—good job. We retrospectively obtained the preliminary interpretation scores for each study. Total relative value units (RVUs) per shift were calculated as an indicator of overnight workload. The dataset was supplemented with information on trainee level, number of consecutive nights on night float, hour, modality, and per-shift RVU. The data were analyzed with proportional logistic regression and Fisher’s exact test. There were 233 major discrepancies (1.26 %). Trainee level (senior vs. junior residents; 1.08 vs. 1.38 %; p?<?0.05) and modality were significantly associated with performance. Increased workload affected more junior residents’ performance, with R3 residents performing significantly worse on busier nights. Hour of the night was not significantly associated with performance, but there was a trend toward best performance at 2 am, with subsequent decreased accuracy throughout the remaining shift hours. Improved performance occurred after the first six night float shifts, presumably as residents acclimated to a night schedule. As overnight shift work schedules increase in popularity for residents and attendings, focused attention to factors impacting interpretative accuracy is warranted.     

Resident Interpretation of Emergency CT Scans in the Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis

PURPOSE: Radiology resident interpretation of computed tomographic (CT) scans at academic institutions often guides management of cases of suspected acute appendicitis in the emergency department. The purpose of this study was to compare resident and faculty interpretation of CT scans obtained for acute appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 16, 1999, to July 13, 2000, CT was performed in 103 consecutive patients between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM who were suspected of having acute appendicitis. The authors compared the residents' preliminary written interpretations with both the final reports written by the faculty and the surgical findings. The faculty interpreting the CT scans were aware of resident interpretations but were not aware that a study was being conducted. RESULTS: The final faculty interpretation and the preliminary resident interpretation were identical in 96 of the 103 patients (93%; 95% confidence interval: 87.8%, 97.2%). In only one patient was a scan originally interpreted as negative interpreted as positive by the faculty member. Clinically, the patient did not have acute appendicitis, and surgery was not perforrmed. CONCLUSION: In the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, image interpretations made by adequately trained radiology residents can be expected to closely match those of the radiology faculty, and the practice of after-hours interpretation of such studies by radiology residents is safe.     

Quality control in neuroradiology: discrepancies in image interpretation among academic neuroradiologists

Prior studies have found a 3%-6% clinically significant error rate in radiology practice. We set out to assess discrepancy rates between subspecialty-trained university-based neuroradiologists. Over 17 months, university neuroradiologists randomly reviewed 1000 studies and reports of previously read examinations of patients in whom follow-up studies were read. The discrepancies between the original and "second opinion" reports were scored according to a 5-point scale: 1, no change; 2, clinically insignificant detection discrepancy; 3, clinically insignificant interpretation discrepancy; 4, clinically significant detection discrepancy; and 5, clinically significant interpretation discrepancy. Of the 1000 studies, 876 (87.6%) showed agreements with the original report. The neuroradiology division had a 2.0% (20/1000; 95% CI, 1.1%-2.9%) rate of clinically significant discrepancies involving 8 CTs and 12 MR images. Discrepancies were classified as vascular (n = 7), neoplastic (n = 9), congenital (n = 2), and artifacts (n = 2). Individual neuroradiologist's scores ranged from 0% to 7.7% ± 2.3% (n = 18). Both CT and MR imaging studies had a discrepancy rate of 2.0%. Our quality assessment study could serve as initial data before intervention as part of a PQI project.     

Computed tomography colonography: Radiographer independent preliminary clinical evaluation for intraluminal pathology

IntroductionWe evaluated the reporting competency of radiographers providing preliminary clinical evaluations (PCE) for intraluminal pathology of computed tomography colonography (CTC).MethodFollowing validation of a suitable tool, audit was undertaken to compare radiographer PCE against radiology reports. A database was designed to capture radiographer and radiologist report data. The radiographer's PCE of intraluminal pathology was given a score, the “pathology discrepancy and significance” (PDS) score based on the pathology present, any discrepancy between the PCE and the final report, and the significance of that discrepancy on the management of the patient. Agreement was assessed using percentage agreement and Kappa coefficient. Significant discrepancies between findings were compared against endoscopy and pathology reports.ResultsThere was agreement or insignificant discrepancy between the radiographer PCE and the radiology report for 1736 patients, representing 97.0% of cases. There was a significant discrepancy between findings in 2.8% of cases and a major discrepancy recorded for 0.2% of cases. There was a 98.4% agreement in the 229 cases where significant pathologies were present.ConclusionFrom a database of 1815 studies acquired over three years and representing work done in a clinical environment, this study indicates a potential for trained radiographers to provide a PCE of intraluminal pathology.     

Resident vs. attending interpretation of on-call studies: clinical impact

Purpose: This study was performed to determine whether significant changes to patient treatment plan or outcome result from discrepancies between on-call radiology residents and follow-up attending radiologists in their interpretation of examinations. Methods: For 70 days we recorded on-call radiology residents' readings of all computed tomography and ultrasound examinations performed in our institution and the follow-up attending radiologists' readings of these same examinations. A chart review was performed to determine whether interpretation discrepancies changed the treatment plan and clinical outcome. Results: Eight-hundred thirty-four examinations met the study guidelines. The overall discrepancy rate was 5.16 %. Of these discrepancies, 6.98 % affected the treatment plan (0.36 % of all 834 studies) and none affected the clinical outcome. Conclusion: Where there is a discrepancy between interpretation of computed tomography and ultrasound after hours by on-call radiology residents and follow-up readings by attending radiologists, this discrepancy has no significant effect on the immediate or long-term care of patients.