Literature DB >> 19945042

Accuracy of preliminary interpretation of neurologic CT examinations by on-call radiology residents and assessment of patient outcomes at a level I trauma center.

Asako Miyakoshi1, Quynh T Nguyen, Wendy A Cohen, Lee B Talner, Yoshimi Anzai.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the accuracy of preliminary interpretations of emergency neurologic CT scans after hours by on-call radiology residents and to assess the clinical impact of residents' errors at a level I trauma center.
METHODS: A quality assurance database of neurologic CT examinations was reviewed to compare preliminary interpretations by on-call residents with final analyses by attending neuroradiologists during a 12-month period. All disagreements were reviewed for confirmation of the findings and categorized as significant or nonsignificant. Significant errors were further classified as acute intracranial, acute extracranial, and nonacute. Medical records for scans with significant errors were reviewed to evaluate any negative impact on the patient for each significant case. Residents' postgraduate years were also recorded.
RESULTS: There were 252 cases (3.7%) with disagreements among 6,852 total cases. Of those, 226 (3.3%) were confirmed as resident errors, which included 171 (2.5%) that were significant. There were 73 (1.1%) acute intracranial, 77 (1.1%) acute extracranial, and 21 (0.3%) nonacute misinterpretations. Among the 171 significant cases, 105 (1.5%) had no changes in clinical management, and 55 (0.8%) required some changes.
CONCLUSION: The rate of significant errors by on-call radiology residents was low. These errors had a minimal impact on clinical outcomes. Continued monitoring of residents' performance is important to maintain or improve patient safety.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19945042     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2009.07.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol        ISSN: 1546-1440            Impact factor:   5.532


  8 in total

1.  Diagnostic errors in pediatric radiology.

Authors:  George A Taylor; Stephan D Voss; Patrice R Melvin; Dionne A Graham
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2010-09-09

2.  Emergency imaging discrepancy rates at a level 1 trauma center: identifying the most common on-call resident "misses".

Authors:  Jennifer Tomich; Michele Retrouvey; Sarah Shaves
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2013-07-26

3.  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

4.  Risk Factors for Perceptual-versus-Interpretative Errors in Diagnostic Neuroradiology.

Authors:  S H Patel; C L Stanton; S G Miller; J T Patrie; J N Itri; T M Shepherd
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2019-07-11       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Increasing neuroradiology exam volumes on-call do not result in increased major discrepancies in primary reads performed by residents.

Authors:  Jared T Verdoorn; Christopher H Hunt; Marianne T Luetmer; Christopher P Wood; Laurence J Eckel; Kara M Schwartz; Felix E Diehn; David F Kallmes
Journal:  Open Neuroimag J       Date:  2015-01-27

6.  Interpretation of emergency CT scans in polytrauma: trauma surgeon vs radiologist.

Authors:  Priyashini Parag; Timothy Craig Hardcastle
Journal:  Afr J Emerg Med       Date:  2020-03-07

7.  Quantifying disruption of workflow by phone calls to the neuroradiology reading room.

Authors:  Shyam Sabat; Paul Kalapos; Einat Slonimsky
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2019-09-17

8.  Deep learning algorithm in detecting intracranial hemorrhages on emergency computed tomographies.

Authors:  Almut Kundisch; Alexander Hönning; Sven Mutze; Lutz Kreissl; Frederik Spohn; Johannes Lemcke; Maximilian Sitz; Paul Sparenberg; Leonie Goelz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.