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

Reader error during CT colonography: causes and implications for training

This study investigated the variability in baseline computed tomography colonography (CTC) performance using untrained readers by documenting sources of error to guide future training requirements. Twenty CTC endoscopically validated data sets containing 32 polyps were consensus read by three unblinded radiologists experienced in CTC, creating a reference standard. Six readers without prior CTC training [four residents and two board-certified subspecialty gastrointestinal (GI) radiologists] read the 20 cases. Readers drew a region of interest (ROI) around every area they considered a potential colonic lesion, even if subsequently dismissed, before creating a final report. Using this final report, reader ROIs were classified as true positive detections, true negatives correctly dismissed, true detections incorrectly dismissed (i.e., classification error), or perceptual errors. Detection of polyps 1-5 mm, 6-9 mm, and > or =10 mm ranged from 7.1% to 28.6%, 16.7% to 41.7%, and 16.7% to 83.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference between polyp detection or false positives for the GI radiologists compared with residents (p=0.67, p=0.4 respectively). Most missed polyps were due to failure of detection rather than characterization (range 82-95%). Untrained reader performance is variable but generally poor. Most missed polyps are due perceptual error rather than characterization, suggesting basic training should focus heavily on lesion detection.

The Quality of Surgical Resident Interpretation of After-Hour CT Scans of the Head and Abdomen in Trauma

Computed tomography (CT) is an important diagnostic tool in the evaluation of trauma patients. Accurate interpretation of CT scans remains critical in decision-making and the resultant quality of care. In our study, the records of a consecutive cohort of trauma patients who underwent after-hour CT scans of the head and abdomen between January 23 and June 30, 2004, at Kern Medical Center were reviewed. Three hundred thirty-five CT studies were collected in 211 patients. The accuracy of resident interpretation was 92.8 per cent for abdominal and 97.5 per cent for head CT. Resident readings were 93.2 per cent sensitive and 95.4 per cent specific with a positive predictive value of 85.2 per cent and a negative predictive value of 98.0 per cent. There were 16 (4.8%) instances of interpretation discrepancy between the surgical resident and attending radiologist. Most differences occurred in the evaluation of abdominal CT. In no instance was management or outcome for these patients affected. This data demonstrates a low error rate in resident interpretation of after-hour CT scans of the head and abdomen in trauma, but there remains a need for the continued review of the quality of surgical resident radiologic interpretation in situations when an attending radiologist is not immediately available.

Radiology residents' on-call interpretation of chest radiographs for pneumonia

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study is designed to assess the performance of radiology residents in interpreting emergency department chest radiographs for pneumonia and to characterize chest radiographic findings in patients for which interpretation was amended by an attending radiologist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all amended reports for chest radiographs performed on emergency department patients July 2002-June 2003. Reports preliminarily interpreted by residents and amended by a board-certified staff radiologist for the presence or absence of pneumonia were identified. A panel of three experienced radiologists, blinded to reports, jointly reviewed each chest radiograph. If the panel diagnosed pneumonia, the chest radiograph was evaluated for the projection that best showed the pneumonia, its size and location, and the presence or absence of the following features: increased opacity, air bronchograms, loss of vascular markings, silhouette sign, and linear opacities. The resident's post-graduate year (PGY) training level was noted.

RESULTS

One percent (134/12,600 reports) of chest radiographic reports were amended for the presence or absence of pneumonia. One hundred chest radiographs were available and comprised the series. There were 56 females and 44 males with a mean age of 45 years (range, 1-99 years). The staff radiologist diagnosed pneumonia in 79% (79/100 radiographs). The panel agreed with the staff in 77% (kappa = 0.76) and the resident in 23% (kappa = 0.43). The panel diagnosed pneumonia in 60% (60/100 radiographs) with the following chest radiographic findings: 100% (60/60), increased opacity; 37% (22/60), air bronchograms; 72% (43/60), loss of vascular markings; 40% (24/60), silhouette sign; and 20% (12/60), linear opacities. The pneumonia was right sided in 52% (31/60), left sided in 37% (22/60), and bilateral in 11% (7/60). Right-sided pneumonias were equally distributed among the three lobes, and left-sided pneumonias had a lower-lobe predominance of 77% (17/22). Seventy-five percent (45/60) of pneumonias were segmental or smaller, and 82% (49/60) of chest radiographs showing pneumonia had both posteroanterior and lateral projections. The pneumonia was conspicuous on only one projection in 43% (21/49); the posteroanterior view in 22% (11/49), and the lateral view in 20% (10/49). Eighty-one percent (81/100) of interpreting residents were PGY-3.

CONCLUSION

Interpretation of chest radiographs for pneumonia by PGY-3 residents has a low error rate. Missed pneumonias often were segmental or smaller and conspicuous on only one projection.

Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking

Diagnostic radiology does not have objective benchmarks for acceptable levels of missed diagnoses. Until now, data collection of radiological discrepancies has been very time consuming. The culture within the specialty did not encourage it. However, public concern about patient safety is increasing. There have been recent innovations in compiling radiological interpretive discrepancy rates which may facilitate radiological standard setting. However standard setting alone will not optimise radiologists' performance or patient safety. We must use these new techniques in radiological discrepancy detection to stimulate greater knowledge sharing, targeted instruction and teamworking among radiologists. Not all radiological discrepancies are errors. Radiological discrepancy programmes must not be abused as an instrument for discrediting individual radiologists. Discrepancy rates must not be distorted as a weapon in turf battles. Radiological errors may be due to many causes and are often multifactorial. A systems approach to radiological error is required. Meaningful analysis of radiological discrepancies and errors is challenging. Valid standard setting will take time. Meanwhile, we need to develop top-up training, mentoring and rehabilitation programmes.

Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking

Diagnostic radiology does not have objective benchmarks for acceptable levels of missed diagnoses. Until now, data collection of radiological discrepancies has been very time consuming. The culture within the specialty did not encourage it. However, public concern about patient safety is increasing. There have been recent innovations in compiling radiological interpretive discrepancy rates which may facilitate radiological standard setting. However standard setting alone will not optimise radiologists' performance or patient safety. We must use these new techniques in radiological discrepancy detection to stimulate greater knowledge sharing, targeted instruction and teamworking among radiologists. Not all radiological discrepancies are errors. Radiological discrepancy programmes must not be abused as an instrument for discrediting individual radiologists. Discrepancy rates must not be distorted as a weapon in turf battles. Radiological errors may be due to many causes and are often multifactorial. A systems approach to radiological error is required. Meaningful analysis of radiological discrepancies and errors is challenging. Valid standard setting will take time. Meanwhile, we need to develop top-up training, mentoring and rehabilitation programmes.

The private-practice perspective of the manpower crisis in radiology: Greener pastures?

Rising consumer expectations and a rapidly aging population point to a long-term shortage of all physicians, including radiologists. While attention has been drawn to the escalating manpower crisis in academic radiology departments, the private-practice perspective has been generally overlooked. Although clinical workloads and income are higher in private practice, studies have shown higher satisfaction levels (likely because of a greater variety of work) among academic radiologists. As the distinction between community and teaching hospitals has become increasingly blurred, there is now considerable overlap in the skill sets, sources of job satisfaction, and stresses that are encountered in both practice settings. Perhaps more than at any time in the recent past, diagnostic radiologists in academic and private practice share more in common than any perceived differences. Both groups must work together in concert with the ACR to address the growing manpower shortage, as well as the other challenges that confront diagnostic radiology at the beginning of the 21st century.