OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of on-call radiology residents in interpreting alone brain and spine MRI studies performed after hours, to describe their mistakes, and to identify influencing factors that increased the occurrence of errors. METHODS: A total of 328 MRI examinations performed during a 13-month period (from December 1, 2019, to January 1, 2021) were prospectively included. Discrepancies between the preliminary interpretation of on-call radiology residents and the final reports of attending neuroradiologists were noted and classified according to a three-level score: level 1 (perfect interpretation or minor correction), level 2 (important correction without immediate change in patient management), or level 3 (major correction with immediate change in patient management). Categorical data were compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The overall discrepancy rate (level-2 and level-3 errors) was 16%; the rate of major discrepancies (only level-3 errors) was 5.5%. The major-discrepancy rate of second-year residents, when compared with that of senior residents, was significantly higher (p = 0.02). Almost all of the level-3 errors concerned cerebrovascular pathology. The most common level-2 errors involved undescribed aneurysms. We found no significant difference in the major-discrepancy rate regarding time since the beginning of the shift. CONCLUSIONS: The great majority of examinations were correctly interpreted. The rate of major discrepancies in our study was comparable to the data in the literature, and there was no adverse clinical outcome. The level of residency has an effect on the rate of serious errors in residents' reports. KEY POINTS: • The rate of major discrepancies between preliminary MRI interpretations by on-call radiology residents and final reports by attending neuroradiologists is low, and comparable to discrepancy rates reported for head CT interpretations. • The youngest residents made significantly more serious errors when compared to senior residents. • There was no adverse clinical outcome in patient morbidity as a result of an initial misdiagnosis.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of on-call radiology residents in interpreting alone brain and spine MRI studies performed after hours, to describe their mistakes, and to identify influencing factors that increased the occurrence of errors. METHODS: A total of 328 MRI examinations performed during a 13-month period (from December 1, 2019, to January 1, 2021) were prospectively included. Discrepancies between the preliminary interpretation of on-call radiology residents and the final reports of attending neuroradiologists were noted and classified according to a three-level score: level 1 (perfect interpretation or minor correction), level 2 (important correction without immediate change in patient management), or level 3 (major correction with immediate change in patient management). Categorical data were compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The overall discrepancy rate (level-2 and level-3 errors) was 16%; the rate of major discrepancies (only level-3 errors) was 5.5%. The major-discrepancy rate of second-year residents, when compared with that of senior residents, was significantly higher (p = 0.02). Almost all of the level-3 errors concerned cerebrovascular pathology. The most common level-2 errors involved undescribed aneurysms. We found no significant difference in the major-discrepancy rate regarding time since the beginning of the shift. CONCLUSIONS: The great majority of examinations were correctly interpreted. The rate of major discrepancies in our study was comparable to the data in the literature, and there was no adverse clinical outcome. The level of residency has an effect on the rate of serious errors in residents' reports. KEY POINTS: • The rate of major discrepancies between preliminary MRI interpretations by on-call radiology residents and final reports by attending neuroradiologists is low, and comparable to discrepancy rates reported for head CT interpretations. • The youngest residents made significantly more serious errors when compared to senior residents. • There was no adverse clinical outcome in patient morbidity as a result of an initial misdiagnosis.
Authors: Christopher G Filippi; Brett Schneider; Heather N Burbank; Gary F Alsofrom; Grant Linnell; Bela Ratkovits Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Julie Ruma; Katherine A Klein; Suzanne Chong; Jeffrey Wesolowski; Ella A Kazerooni; James H Ellis; James D Myles Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Vincent Mellnick; Constantine Raptis; Sebastian McWilliams; Daniel Picus; Richard Wahl Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 5.532