Literature DB >> 17252247

First year radiology residents not taking call: will there be a difference?

William M Strub1, James L Leach, Jun Ying, Achala Vagal.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17252247     DOI: 10.1007/s10140-007-0571-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Radiol        ISSN: 1070-3004


  18 in total

1.  Head trauma: CT scan interpretation by radiology residents versus staff radiologists.

Authors:  M G Wysoki; C J Nassar; R A Koenigsberg; R A Novelline; S H Faro; E N Faerber
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Errors of interpretation as elicited by a quality audit of an emergency radiology facility.

Authors:  J T Rhea; M S Potsaid; S A DeLuca
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1979-08       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  The night stalker effect: quality improvements with a dedicated night-call rotation.

Authors:  F A Mann; P L Danz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  Interpretation of radiographs: effect of clinical history.

Authors:  P Doubilet; P G Herman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1981-11       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Resident film interpretations and staff review.

Authors:  S E Seltzer; S J Hessel; P G Herman; R G Swensson; C R Sheriff
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1981-07       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Interpretation of pediatric x-ray films by emergency department pediatricians.

Authors:  G Fleisher; S Ludwig; M McSorley
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 5.721

7.  The selective reporting of X-ray films from the Accident and Emergency Department.

Authors:  B Mucci
Journal:  Injury       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 2.586

8.  An assessment of the clinical effects of reporting accident and emergency radiographs.

Authors:  G de Lacey; A Barker; J Harper; B Wignall
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1980-04       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Most frequently overlooked radiographically apparent fractures in a teaching hospital emergency department.

Authors:  H A Freed; N N Shields
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 5.721

10.  Effects of training and experience in interpretation of emergency body CT scans.

Authors:  R J Wechsler; C M Spettell; A B Kurtz; A S Lev-Toaff; E J Halpern; L N Nazarian; R I Feld; L Needleman; A A Alexander
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  3 in total

1.  Trainee misinterpretations on pediatric neuroimaging studies: classification, imaging analysis, and outcome assessment.

Authors:  C V A Guimaraes; J L Leach; B V Jones
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  The misinterpretation rates of radiology residents on emergent neuroradiology magnetic resonance (MR) angiogram studies: correlation with level of residency training.

Authors:  Christopher G Filippi; Russell E Meyer; Keith Cauley; Joshua P Nickerson; Heather N Burbank; Jason M Johnson; Grant J Linnell; Gray F Alsofrom
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2009-06-05

3.  Interobserver Agreement between On-Call Radiology Resident and General Radiologist Interpretations of CT Pulmonary Angiograms and CT Venograms.

Authors:  Bahar Tamjeedi; José Correa; Alexandre Semionov; Benoît Mesurolle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.