OBJECTIVE: To assess the skills of anesthesiologists in the interpretation of chest radiographs. DESIGN: Randomized evaluation conducted among anesthesiologists and radiologists. SETTING:Postgraduate Assembly of the New York State Society of Anesthesiologists in 1999, and the Department of Radiology, New York University Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 61 anesthesiologists (48 attending physicians; 13 residents); control group of 8 radiology residents (all participants volunteered). INTERVENTIONS: After completing a demographic survey, participants were asked to review a series of 10 chest radiographs. A brief clinical scenario accompanied each radiograph. No time limit was set for these interpretations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The demographic characteristics of the anesthesiology participants included university faculty (46%), private group practitioners (41%), independent practitioners (11%), and 1 participant with an unspecified type of practice. Additional training among the participants included internal medicine (31%), surgery (19%), and pediatrics (3%); 34% did not specify any additional training. Of the participants, 92% were involved in cases requiring general anesthesia; 96% managed patients in the recovery room; and 34% managed patients in the intensive care unit. Of participants, 80% usually order chest radiographs, but only 42% interpret the films themselves. Misdiagnosed radiographs included pneumothorax by 11% of participants, free air under the diaphragm by 41%, bronchial perforation from a nasogastric tube by 28%, right mainstem intubation by 20%, superior vena cava perforation from a central venous catheter by 31%, normal film by 75%, negative pressure pulmonary edema by 16%, left lower lobe collapse by 80%, pulmonary infarction from a pulmonary artery catheter by 29%, and tension pneumothorax by 41%. Overall scores of the attending physicians were not significantly different from that of residents (p > 0.05). The control group of radiology residents scored significantly better (mean, 83.7; p = 0.009) than the anesthesia residents (mean, 62.8) and anesthesia attending physicians (mean, 62.5). CONCLUSION: Anesthesiologists are deficient in skills for the interpretation of chest radiographs. The skill level of university-based physicians is not greater than physicians in private practice, and skill level does not improve with level of training or experience. Most anesthesiologists rely on radiologists for interpretative results. Further training during the residency years may help improve diagnostic skills. Copyright 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the skills of anesthesiologists in the interpretation of chest radiographs. DESIGN: Randomized evaluation conducted among anesthesiologists and radiologists. SETTING: Postgraduate Assembly of the New York State Society of Anesthesiologists in 1999, and the Department of Radiology, New York University Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 61 anesthesiologists (48 attending physicians; 13 residents); control group of 8 radiology residents (all participants volunteered). INTERVENTIONS: After completing a demographic survey, participants were asked to review a series of 10 chest radiographs. A brief clinical scenario accompanied each radiograph. No time limit was set for these interpretations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The demographic characteristics of the anesthesiology participants included university faculty (46%), private group practitioners (41%), independent practitioners (11%), and 1 participant with an unspecified type of practice. Additional training among the participants included internal medicine (31%), surgery (19%), and pediatrics (3%); 34% did not specify any additional training. Of the participants, 92% were involved in cases requiring general anesthesia; 96% managed patients in the recovery room; and 34% managed patients in the intensive care unit. Of participants, 80% usually order chest radiographs, but only 42% interpret the films themselves. Misdiagnosed radiographs included pneumothorax by 11% of participants, free air under the diaphragm by 41%, bronchial perforation from a nasogastric tube by 28%, right mainstem intubation by 20%, superior vena cava perforation from a central venous catheter by 31%, normal film by 75%, negative pressure pulmonary edema by 16%, left lower lobe collapse by 80%, pulmonary infarction from a pulmonary artery catheter by 29%, and tension pneumothorax by 41%. Overall scores of the attending physicians were not significantly different from that of residents (p > 0.05). The control group of radiology residents scored significantly better (mean, 83.7; p = 0.009) than the anesthesia residents (mean, 62.8) and anesthesia attending physicians (mean, 62.5). CONCLUSION: Anesthesiologists are deficient in skills for the interpretation of chest radiographs. The skill level of university-based physicians is not greater than physicians in private practice, and skill level does not improve with level of training or experience. Most anesthesiologists rely on radiologists for interpretative results. Further training during the residency years may help improve diagnostic skills. Copyright 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company