Margaret M O'Keeffe1, Todd M Davis2, Kerry Siminoski1. 1. Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Medical Imaging Consultants, 11010-101 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5H 4B9. 2. Intelerad, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Present address: 295 Midpark Way SE, Suite 380, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2X 2A8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess review completion rates, RADPEER score distribution, and sources of disagreement when using a workstation-integrated radiology peer review program, and to evaluate radiologist perceptions of the program. DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. SETTING: Large private outpatient radiology practice. PARTICIPANTS: Radiologists (n = 66) with a mean of 16.0 (standard deviation, 9.2) years of experience. INTERVENTIONS: Prior studies and reports of cases being actively reported were randomly selected for peer review using the RADPEER scoring system (a 4-point scale, with a score of 1 indicating agreement and scores of 2-4 indicating increasing levels of disagreement). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assigned peer review completion rates, review scores, sources of disagreement and radiologist survey responses. RESULTS: Of 31 293 assigned cases, 29 044 (92.8%; 95% CI 92.5-93.1%) were reviewed. Discrepant scores (score = 2, 3 or 4) were given in 0.69% (95% CI 0.60-0.79%) of cases and clinically significant discrepancy (score = 3 or 4) was assigned in 0.42% (95% CI 0.35-0.50%). The most common cause of disagreement was missed diagnosis (75.2%; 95% CI 66.8-82.1%). By anonymous survey, 94% of radiologists felt that peer review was worthwhile, 90% reported that the scores they received were appropriate and 78% felt that the received feedback was valuable. CONCLUSION: Workstation-based peer review can increase completion rates and levels of radiologist acceptance while producing RADPEER scores similar to those previously reported. This approach may be one way to increase radiologist engagement in peer review quality assurance.
OBJECTIVE: To assess review completion rates, RADPEER score distribution, and sources of disagreement when using a workstation-integrated radiology peer review program, and to evaluate radiologist perceptions of the program. DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. SETTING: Large private outpatient radiology practice. PARTICIPANTS: Radiologists (n = 66) with a mean of 16.0 (standard deviation, 9.2) years of experience. INTERVENTIONS: Prior studies and reports of cases being actively reported were randomly selected for peer review using the RADPEER scoring system (a 4-point scale, with a score of 1 indicating agreement and scores of 2-4 indicating increasing levels of disagreement). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assigned peer review completion rates, review scores, sources of disagreement and radiologist survey responses. RESULTS: Of 31 293 assigned cases, 29 044 (92.8%; 95% CI 92.5-93.1%) were reviewed. Discrepant scores (score = 2, 3 or 4) were given in 0.69% (95% CI 0.60-0.79%) of cases and clinically significant discrepancy (score = 3 or 4) was assigned in 0.42% (95% CI 0.35-0.50%). The most common cause of disagreement was missed diagnosis (75.2%; 95% CI 66.8-82.1%). By anonymous survey, 94% of radiologists felt that peer review was worthwhile, 90% reported that the scores they received were appropriate and 78% felt that the received feedback was valuable. CONCLUSION: Workstation-based peer review can increase completion rates and levels of radiologist acceptance while producing RADPEER scores similar to those previously reported. This approach may be one way to increase radiologist engagement in peer review quality assurance.