Literature DB >> 23381098

QRSE: a novel metric for the evaluation of trainee radiologist reporting skills.

David Surrey1, Richard E Sharpe, Richard J T Gorniak, Levon N Nazarian, Vijay M Rao, Adam E Flanders.   

Abstract

Diagnostic radiology training programs must produce highly skilled diagnostic radiologists capable of interpreting radiological examinations and communicating results to clinicians. Established training performance tools evaluate interpretive skills, but trainees' competency in reporting skills is also essential. Our semi-automated passive electronic tool entitled the Quantitative Reporting Skills Evaluation (QRSE) allows radiology training programs to evaluate the quantity of edits made to trainee preliminary reports by attending physicians as a metric to evaluate trainee reporting performance. Consecutive report pairs and metadata extracted from the radiology information system were anonymized and exported to a MySQL database. To perform the QRSE, for each report pair, open source software was first utilized to calculate the Levenshtein Percent (LP), the percent of character changes required to convert each preliminary report to its corresponding final report. The average LP (ALP), ALP for each trainee, and standard deviations were calculated. Eighty-four trainees and 56 attending radiologists interpreted 228,543 radiological examinations during the study period. The overall ALP was 6.38 %. Trainee-specific ALPs ranged from 1.1 to 15.3 %. Among trainee-specific ALPs, the standard deviation was 3.7 %. Our analysis identified five trainees with trainee-specific ALPs above 2 standard deviations from the mean and 14 trainees with trainee-specific ALPs less than 1 standard deviation below the mean. The QRSE methodology allows for the passive, quantitative, and longitudinal evaluation of the reporting skills of trainees during diagnostic radiology residency training. The QRSE identifies trainees with high and low levels of edits to their preliminary reports, as a marker for trainee overall reporting skills, and thus represents a novel performance metric for radiology training programs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23381098      PMCID: PMC3705016          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-013-9574-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  10 in total

1.  Language of the radiology report: primer for residents and wayward radiologists.

Authors:  F M Hall
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  General competencies in radiology residency training: definitions, skills, education and assessment.

Authors:  Jannette Collins; Melissa Rosado de Christenson; Linda Gray; Charles Hyde; Kelly K Koeller; Fred Laine; Beverly Wood
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Preliminary interpretations of after-hours CT and sonography by radiology residents versus final interpretations by body imaging radiologists at a level 1 trauma center.

Authors:  Erin Carney; Jeffrey Kempf; Victor DeCarvalho; Anthony Yudd; John Nosher
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Radiology Report Comparator: a novel method to augment resident education.

Authors:  Richard E Sharpe; David Surrey; Richard J T Gorniak; Levon Nazarian; Vijay M Rao; Adam E Flanders
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Using a web-based application to enhance resident training and improve performance on-call.

Authors:  Jason N Itri; Regina O Redfern; Mary H Scanlon
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-05-05       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Discrepancies in interpretation of ED body computed tomographic scans by radiology residents.

Authors:  Nelson Tieng; Diana Grinberg; Siu Fai Li
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.469

7.  Discrepancy rates of on-call radiology residents' interpretations of CT angiography studies of the neck and circle of Willis.

Authors:  Russell E Meyer; Joshua P Nickerson; Heather N Burbank; Gary F Alsofrom; Grant J Linnell; Christopher G Filippi
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  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

9.  Orion: a web-based application designed to monitor resident and fellow performance on-call.

Authors:  Jason N Itri; Woojin Kim; Mary H Scanlon
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.056

10.  Radiologic reports: structure and review.

Authors:  T B Hunter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 3.959

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Comparing Preliminary and Final Neuroradiology Reports: What Factors Determine the Differences?

Authors:  K Stankiewicz; M Cohen; M Carone; G Sevinc; P G Nagy; J S Lewin; D M Yousem; L S Babiarz
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  Am I Ready to Be an Independent Neuroradiologist? Objective Trends in Neuroradiology Fellows' Performance during the Fellowship Year.

Authors:  J H Masur; J E Schmitt; D Lalevic; T S Cook; L J Bagley; S Mohan; A P Nayate
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 3.825

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.