Jeffrey D Robinson1, Ken F Linnau2, Daniel S Hippe2, Kellie L Sheehan2, Joel A Gross2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, 325 9th Avenue, Box 359728, Seattle, WA, 98104, USA. Jeff8rob@uw.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, 325 9th Avenue, Box 359728, Seattle, WA, 98104, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Growing numbers of patient with advanced imaging being transferred to trauma centers has resulted in increased numbers of outside CT scans received at trauma centers. This study examines the degree of agreement between community radiologists' interpretations of the CT scans of transferred patients and trauma center radiologists' reinterpretation. METHODS: All CT scans of emergency transfer patients received over a 1 month period were reviewed by an emergency radiologist. Patients were classified as trauma or non-trauma and exams as neuro or non-neuro. Interpretive discrepancies between the emergency radiologist and community radiologist were classified as minor, moderate, or major. Major discrepancies were confirmed by review of a second emergency radiologist. Discrepancy rates were calculated on a per-patient and per exam basis. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-seven CT scans of 326 patients were reviewed. Major discrepancies were encountered in 52 (16.0%, 95% CI 12.2-20.5) patients and 53 exams (8.5%, 95% CI 6.5-10.5). These were discovered in 46 trauma patients (21.6%, 95% CI 16.4-27.9) compared to six non-trauma patients (5.3%, 95% CI 2.2-11.7) (P < 0.001). A significant difference in the major discrepancy rate was also found between non-neuro and neuro exams (12.4 vs 3.3%, respectively, P < 0.001), primarily due to discrepancies in trauma patients, rather than non-trauma patients. CONCLUSIONS: Potentially management-changing interpretive changes affected 16% of transferred patients and 8.5% of CT exams over a 1 month period. Trauma center reinterpretations of community hospital CT scans of transferred patients provide valuable additional information to the clinical services caring for critically ill patients.
PURPOSE: Growing numbers of patient with advanced imaging being transferred to trauma centers has resulted in increased numbers of outside CT scans received at trauma centers. This study examines the degree of agreement between community radiologists' interpretations of the CT scans of transferred patients and trauma center radiologists' reinterpretation. METHODS: All CT scans of emergency transfer patients received over a 1 month period were reviewed by an emergency radiologist. Patients were classified as trauma or non-trauma and exams as neuro or non-neuro. Interpretive discrepancies between the emergency radiologist and community radiologist were classified as minor, moderate, or major. Major discrepancies were confirmed by review of a second emergency radiologist. Discrepancy rates were calculated on a per-patient and per exam basis. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-seven CT scans of 326 patients were reviewed. Major discrepancies were encountered in 52 (16.0%, 95% CI 12.2-20.5) patients and 53 exams (8.5%, 95% CI 6.5-10.5). These were discovered in 46 traumapatients (21.6%, 95% CI 16.4-27.9) compared to six non-traumapatients (5.3%, 95% CI 2.2-11.7) (P < 0.001). A significant difference in the major discrepancy rate was also found between non-neuro and neuro exams (12.4 vs 3.3%, respectively, P < 0.001), primarily due to discrepancies in traumapatients, rather than non-traumapatients. CONCLUSIONS: Potentially management-changing interpretive changes affected 16% of transferred patients and 8.5% of CT exams over a 1 month period. Trauma center reinterpretations of community hospital CT scans of transferred patients provide valuable additional information to the clinical services caring for critically illpatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Computed tomography; Discordance rate; Discrepancy rate; Overread; Transfer patients
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: Richard B Ruchman; Joseph Jaeger; Ernest F Wiggins; Syndi Seinfeld; Vikas Thakral; Sudha Bolla; Sara Wallach Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Christopher Eakins; Wendy D Ellis; Sumit Pruthi; David P Johnson; Marta Hernanz-Schulman; Chang Yu; J Herman Kan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: K Rao; J M Engelbart; J Yanik; J Hall; S Swenson; B Policeni; J Maley; C Galet; T Granchi; D A Skeete Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-11-04 Impact factor: 3.825