BACKGROUND: Teleradiologist interpretation of radiographic studies during after-hours Emergency Department (ED) care has the potential to influence patient management. STUDY OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize frequencies of discrepancies between teleradiology and in-house radiology interpretations for computed tomography (CT) scans. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study comparing teleradiologist and in-house radiologist interpretations of CT scans obtained between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. from the ED at a Level I trauma center. For each scan, discrepancies were characterized as major, minor, or no discrepancy. Follow-up data were used to characterize major discrepancies. RESULTS: Of 787 studies sent to teleradiology, 550 were scans of the head, cervical spine, chest, or abdomen and pelvis. Major discrepancies were identified in 32 of 550 studies (5.8%; 95% confidence interval 4.1%-8.1%), including 7 of 160 head CT scans, 1 of 29 cervical spine CT scans, 3 of 64 chest CT scans, and 21 of 297 abdominopelvic CT scans. We attributed 8 of the 32 major discrepancies to a teleradiology misinterpretation, with one case leading to an adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: We identified major discrepancies due to teleradiologist misinterpretation in 8 of 550 studies, with one patient suffering an adverse event. Our findings support the cautious use of teleradiology interpretations. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Teleradiologist interpretation of radiographic studies during after-hours Emergency Department (ED) care has the potential to influence patient management. STUDY OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize frequencies of discrepancies between teleradiology and in-house radiology interpretations for computed tomography (CT) scans. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study comparing teleradiologist and in-house radiologist interpretations of CT scans obtained between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. from the ED at a Level I trauma center. For each scan, discrepancies were characterized as major, minor, or no discrepancy. Follow-up data were used to characterize major discrepancies. RESULTS: Of 787 studies sent to teleradiology, 550 were scans of the head, cervical spine, chest, or abdomen and pelvis. Major discrepancies were identified in 32 of 550 studies (5.8%; 95% confidence interval 4.1%-8.1%), including 7 of 160 head CT scans, 1 of 29 cervical spine CT scans, 3 of 64 chest CT scans, and 21 of 297 abdominopelvic CT scans. We attributed 8 of the 32 major discrepancies to a teleradiology misinterpretation, with one case leading to an adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: We identified major discrepancies due to teleradiologist misinterpretation in 8 of 550 studies, with one patient suffering an adverse event. Our findings support the cautious use of teleradiology interpretations. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
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
Authors: Rebecca L Gunter; Skyler Chouinard; Sara Fernandes-Taylor; Jason T Wiseman; Sam Clarkson; Kyla Bennett; Caprice C Greenberg; K Craig Kent Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 6.113