Literature DB >> 15351251

Managing errors in radiology: a working model.

C Melvin1, R Bodley, A Booth, T Meagher, C Record, P Savage.   

Abstract

AIM: To develop a practical mechanism for reviewing reporting discrepancies as addressed in the Royal College of Radiologists publication "To err is human. The case for review of reporting discrepancies".
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A regular meeting was developed, and has evolved, within the department to review discrepancies. Standard forms were devised for submission of cases as well as recording and classification of discrepancies. This has resulted in availability of figures that can be audited annually.
RESULTS: Eighty-one cases involving error were reviewed over a 12-month period. Seven further cases flagged as discrepancies were not identified on peer review. Twenty-four reports were amended subsequent to the meeting. Nineteen additional cases were brought to the meeting as illustrative of teaching points or for discussion.
CONCLUSION: We have evolved a successful process of reviewing reporting errors, which enjoys the confidence and support of all clinical radiologists, and is perceived as a method of improving patient care through an increasing awareness of lapses in performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15351251     DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2004.01.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Radiol        ISSN: 0009-9260            Impact factor:   2.350


  4 in total

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

Authors:  Hani H Abujudeh; Giles W Boland; Rathachai Kaewlai; Pavel Rabiner; Elkarn F Halpern; G Scott Gazelle; James H Thrall
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  The iPad tablet computer for mobile on-call radiology diagnosis? Auditing discrepancy in CT and MRI reporting.

Authors:  Sindhu John; Angeline C C Poh; Tchoyoson C C Lim; Elizabeth H Y Chan; Le Roy Chong
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Interrater variation in scoring radiological discrepancies.

Authors:  B Mucci; H Murray; A Downie; K Osborne
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Emergency whole-body CT scans in pediatric patients with trauma: patterns of injuries, yield of dual-phase scanning, and influence of second read on detection of injuries.

Authors:  Pauline Didion; Amandine Crombé; Alexia Dabadie; Sophie Hassid; Mylène Seux; Guillaume Gorincour; Nathan Banaste
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 5.315

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.