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.     

Resident interpretation of emergency computed tomographic scans

Our busy, urban emergency room is staffed by radiology residents after working hours. To determine the accuracy of our residents' interpretations of emergency cranial computed tomographic (CT) scans, the authors reviewed the preliminary reports of our residents for a two-month period. A total of 289 cranial CT scans were retrospectively reviewed and the resident interpretation judged acceptable, minor error, moderate error, or major error. Six of 289 neurologic examinations (2%) had moderate (4) or major (2) errors. The mistakes all involved misinterpretation of cerebral hemorrhage. The 98% accuracy in interpretation of cranial CT is higher than the accuracy reported with emergency plain film (PF) interpretation.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Significant on-call misses by radiology residents interpreting computed tomographic studies: Perception versus cognition

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the etiology of significant false-negative computed tomographic (CT) interpretations by radiology residents on-call. Over a 1-year period, significant on-call false-negative CT interpretations were analyzed to determine whether errors were perceptual (i.e., the resident did not see the finding or findings) or cognitive (i.e., the resident did not recognize the implications or misinterpreted a finding or findings). Significant misses were defined as errors that delayed surgical treatment or misdirected management in a potentially life-threatening manner.A total of 12 significant false-negative interpretations occurred over a 1-year period. All head CT misses (extraaxial hemorrhage, pneumocephalus, contusion, subarachnoid hemorrhage due to ruptured aneurysm) were perceptual errors. Misses on thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic CT scans (2 abscesses, abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture, superior vena cava perforation due to catheter placement, ischemic bowel, liver laceration, hypoperfusion syndrome, appendicitis) were mixed (4 cognitive and 4 perceptual errors).Since the diagnostic possibilities of emergency head CT scans are limited, residents missed only subtle, perceptual manifestations and had little difficulty interpreting findings when they were correctly recognized. The gamut of diagnostic possibilities in the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis was more challenging to residents on-call; errors in both perception and interpretation arose with equal frequency, and the significant error rate was higher than that for head CT interpretation. Junior residents, who make most of the significant on-call errors, commonly feel overwhelmed in attempting to assimilate the knowledge required to take call. Prepartion needs to be extensive, yet it should be focused on areas that will engender optimal impact on after-hours performance. When preparing residents to interpret on-call CT studies, perceptual manifestations of neuroradiology should be emphasized, whereas a more comprehensive approach to thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic disorders needs to be stressed.Presented at the 8th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Emergency Radiology, New Orleans, March 20, 1997     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Emergency physician error rates for interpretation of plain radiographs and utilization of radiologist consultation

Emergency physicians’ errors of interpretation of plain radiographs and these physicians’ utilization of radiologist consultation services were studied. During daytime hours over a 3-month period, 953 radiograph packets on emergency department patients were reviewed in the radiology department after initial interpretation by an emergency department physician. Consultation requests and clinically significant discordances between radiology and emergency department interpretations were tabulated. Discordances were categorized by the type of examination and the type of error. The time between each packet’s arrival in the radiology department and issuance of a report was recorded. After completion of data collection, all of the discrepant cases were reviewed by a staff emergency room physician and a staff radiologist to establish the proper interpretation and the source of the discordance. Radiologist consultation was requested for 106 (11.1%) of the packets. Of the 847 packets for which the emergency room physician did not request radiologist consultation, radiologist and emergency physician interpretations agreed in 776 (91.6%) and were discordant in 71 (8.4%) of the packets. Of 65 cases available for discrepancy review, the reviewers agreed with the radiologist’s interpretation in 60 (92%) of the cases and disagreed in 5 (8%) of the cases. Ten (17%) of the discordances were the result of overcalls, 47 (78%) were the result of overlooked findings, and 3 (5%) were the result of misinterpretations of findings. Sixty-eight percent of the discordances in interpretation were made to chest studies, 15% to abdominal studies, and 17% to musculoskeletal studies. Emergency physicians at the study institution requested consultations from a radiologist in 11.1% of cases. They made potentially important errors on independent interpretation of plain radiographs in 60 of 847 (7.1%) of cases for which consultation was not sought. Radiologists misinterpreted radiographs in 5 cases. These data suggest that radiologists play an important role in emergency health care delivery and should continue to routinely interpret all emergency department radiographs.     

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.     

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.     

Comparison of interpretations of CT angiograms in the evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism by on-call radiology fellows and subsequently by radiology faculty

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate interobserver variability in interpretations performed by on-call radiology fellows and subsequently by attending radiologists of CT angiograms obtained for clinically suspected pulmonary embolism and to evaluate factors contributing to discrepancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Written interpretations made by on-call fellows were compared with reports approved by attending radiologists for all CT angiograms obtained for suspected pulmonary embolism after work hours and on weekends in a recent 19-month period. Interpretations were stratified as positive, negative, or equivocal for pulmonary embolism. In cases of discordant interpretations, those CT angiograms were rereviewed by two thoracic radiologists; then patient medical records were reviewed for evidence of clinical effect. Technical and patient-related reasons for discordant interpretations of CT angiograms were recorded. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-eight oncology patients were examined on CT angiography; five were examined twice. The fellows reported 137 CT angiograms (21%) as positive, 498 (75%) as negative, and 28 (4%) as equivocal for pulmonary embolism. Interpretations of the fellows and attending radiologists agreed in 93% (615/663) of CT angiograms (kappa = 0.80). The concordance rates for CT angiograms interpreted by fellows as positive (89%, 122/137), negative (96%, 479/498), and equivocal (50%, 14/28) were significantly different from each other (p < 0.001 for each). A significantly greater proportion of CT angiograms with discordant interpretations was reported to be technically limited (p < 0.01). No clear adverse clinical events were attributed to discordant interpretations of CT angiograms, although the death of one patient in that subgroup was of indeterminate cause. CONCLUSION: In the evaluation of CT angiograms obtained for suspected pulmonary embolism, on-call fellows showed good agreement with attending radiologists. CT angiograms with discordant interpretations often were limited by technical or patient-related factors.     

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.     

On-call services provided by radiology residents in a university hospital environment.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the consultative role of the radiology resident after hours. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from Mar. 15, 1999, to Jan. 5, 2001, during on-call coverage hours at our university hospital. Urgent radiologic examinations for which the on-call resident rendered a preliminary interpretation were included in our analysis, with the following entered into a database: patient demographics, consultative time and weekday, imaging modality, consulting clinical service and indication for each study. RESULTS: A total of 1784 studies were performed on 1451 patients; most were requested by the emergency department (844 cases [47.3%]). The mean number of radiographic studies performed was 20.1 (standard error of the mean [SEM] 1.1) per weekday (n = 44) and 49.4 (SEM 1.8) per weekend day or holiday (n = 18). There were 1227 (68.8%) computed tomographic (CT), 338 (18.9%) ultrasonographic, 98 (5.5%) plain radiograph, 63 (3.5%) nuclear medicine, 21 (1.2%) interventional, 20 (1.1%) fluoroscopic and 17 (1.0%) magnetic resonance imaging examinations. The 3 most common studies were CT of the head in 692 cases, CT of the abdomen in 230 and venous Doppler ultrasonography in 158. CONCLUSIONS: Radiology residents are performing a diverse and increasing number of emergent diagnostic examinations after hours. It is therefore important that radiology departments are aware of these consultative needs to best ensure that appropriate resident skills are developed to meet these demands.     

CT pulmonary angiography for the detection of pulmonary embolism: interobserver agreement between on-call radiology residents and specialists (CTPA interobserver agreement)

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to prospectively determine interobserver agreement between on-call radiology residents and specialists in the interpretation of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA). METHODS: CTPA examinations obtained between January 2002 and March 2003 were interpreted by a radiology resident on call and by two radiology specialists. Agreement was assessed using percentage of agreement between interpreters and by the kappa coefficient. Sensitivity of residents' interpretations was calculated by relating them to the interpretation of Specialist 1, which served as the gold standard. RESULTS: Of the 81 CTPA examinations evaluated, there was agreement of 93% and 91% for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) and of 97% and 85% for the exclusion of PE with Specialist 1 and 2, respectively. The concordance between residents' interpretations and those of Specialist 1 was very high (kappa=.8), and with those of Specialist 2 was high (kappa=.7). In all cases of agreement between the two specialists, there was complete agreement between the specialists' and the residents' intepretations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed good to very good agreement of residents' interpretations with each of the radiology specialists. Therefore, relying on the residents' preliminary interpretations during after-hour calls is reasonable.     

Emergency radiology testing,teaching, and training

Conclusion This article summarizes the training and teaching of radiology residents before they attempt unsupervised emergency call, as reported in the radiologic literature. It is hoped that this report will prompt a serious evaluation of the responsibilities of radiology residents assigned to the emergency center and a reconsideration of the radiologic training and experience provided to radiology residents before they are required to assume these responsibilities. Clearly, education and training in radiology appropriate to the responsibilities expected of the on-call emergency radiology resident are required to assure optimum patient care.     

Cranial CT interpretation by senior emergency department staff

The aims of the present study were to determine the rate of misinterpretation of non-contrast cranial CT scans by emergency specialists and trainees compared with specialist radiologists, and the proportion of misinterpretations that is consequential. A 12-month prospective blinded cohort study was performed. One-hundred and ninety of 1,282 scans (14.8%) were misinterpreted, and 78 of these (41.1%) were of potential or actual consequence. We conclude that the performance of senior emergency department staff in non-contrast cranial CT interpretation is no better than moderately good, and a large proportion of misinterpretations are of potential or actual clinical consequence.