Emergency abdominal radiography: Discrepancies of preliminary and final interpretation and management relevance

Concordance between a gastrointestinal consultant radiologist, a consultant radiologist and qualified reporting radiographers interpreting abdominal radiographs

INTRODUCTION

Radiographers can accurately report musculoskeletal and chest radiographs, but there is paucity of research comparing the performance of reporting radiographers (RRs) with consultant radiologists when interpreting and reporting abdominal radiographs. This study assessed interobserver agreement in the clinical setting between reporting radiographers and a consultant radiologist compared to an expert gastrointestinal radiologist in a District General Hospital. Major discordant reports affecting patient management were also examined.

METHODS

126 abdominal radiographs reported by 3 RRs in clinical practice were randomly selected and reported by a consultant radiologist and index gastrointestinal radiologist. The reports of the RRs and consultant radiologist were compared against the reports made by the index radiologist for agreement by a colorectal consultant surgeon. All 126 reports were scored as being in either complete agreement, minor disagreement or major disagreement which would have resulted in a change to patient management.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall agreement between the consultant radiologist (CR) and RRs when compared to the index radiologist (CR: n = 90/126, 71.4% and RRs: n = 94/126, 74.6%. p = 0.57). Major disagreements were found, but there was no significant difference between both groups (CR: n = 23/126, 18.3% and RRs: n = 17/126, 13.5%. p = 0.30).

CONCLUSION

RRs can report abdominal radiographs to a comparable level of agreement as a consultant radiologist in the clinical setting. There was no significant difference in reports deemed to affect patient management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study addresses the gap in assessing the performance of RRs reporting abdominal radiographs. This small scale study indicates that radiographers could provide additional support in the reporting of abdominal radiographs. This would help to reduce radiologist workload and enhance the role of the reporting radiographer.

CLASSIFICATION

Agreement between reporting radiographers and radiologists interpreting and reporting abdominal radiographs.

Research Priorities in the Utilization and Interpretation of Diagnostic Imaging: Education, Assessment, and Competency

The appropriate selection and accurate interpretation of diagnostic imaging is a crucial skill for emergency practitioners. To date, the majority of the published literature and research on competency assessment comes from the subspecialty of point-of-care ultrasound. A group of radiologists, physicists, and emergency physicians convened at the 2015 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference to discuss and prioritize a research agenda related to education, assessment, and competency in ordering and interpreting diagnostic imaging. A set of questions for the continued development of an educational curriculum on diagnostic imaging for trainees and competency assessment using specific assessment methods based on current best practices was delineated. The research priorities were developed through an iterative consensus-driven process using a modified nominal group technique that culminated in an in-person breakout session. The four recommendations are: 1) develop a diagnostic imaging curriculum for emergency medicine (EM) residency training; 2) develop, study, and validate tools to assess competency in diagnostic imaging interpretation; 3) evaluate the role of simulation in education, assessment, and competency measures for diagnostic imaging; 4) study is needed regarding the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria, an evidence-based peer-reviewed resource in determining the use of diagnostic imaging, to maximize its value in EM. In this article, the authors review the supporting reliability and validity evidence and make specific recommendations for future research on the education, competency, and assessment of learning diagnostic imaging.

Bowel obstruction and hernia

Bowel obstruction and abdominal hernia are commonly observed in patients seeking emergency care for abdominal pain. This article discusses bowel obstruction, adynamic ileus, acute colonic pseudo-obstruction, and abdominal hernias, with particular emphasis on the management of patients in the emergency department (ED). Although the diagnostic approach to bowel obstruction often requires imaging, abdominal hernia may be identified in most circumstances by history and physical examination alone. Urgent surgical consultation is indicated when there is a concern for bowel ischemia, strangulation, or complete obstruction. This article reviews an ED-based approach to the patient presenting with symptoms of bowel obstruction or hernia.

Small-bowel obstruction: state-of-the-art imaging and its role in clinical management

Small-bowel obstruction (SBO) is a common clinical condition with signs and symptoms similar to other acute abdominal disorders. The radiologic investigation of patients with SBO as well as the indications and timing of surgical intervention have changed over the past 2 decades. This review focuses on modern imaging techniques and their role in both the diagnosis and treatment of patients with SBO.

Current concepts in imaging of small bowel obstruction

The diagnosis and treatment of small bowel obstruction continue to evolve. The imaging approach in the work-up of patients with known or suspected small bowel obstruction and the timing of surgical intervention in this disease have undergone considerable changes over the past two decades. This article examines the current concepts related to the use of imaging technology in the diagnosis and management of patients with small bowel obstruction. The meaning of frequently used but poorly defined terms in describing intestinal obstruction is clarified and illustrated.

Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image

The performance of the human eye and brain has failed to keep pace with the enormous technical progress in the first full century of radiology. Errors and variations in interpretation now represent the weakest aspect of clinical imaging. Those interpretations which differ from the consensus view of a panel of "experts" may be regarded as errors; where experts fail to achieve consensus, differing reports are regarded as "observer variation". Errors arise from poor technique, failures of perception, lack of knowledge and misjudgments. Observer variation is substantial and should be taken into account when different diagnostic methods are compared; in many cases the difference between observers outweighs the difference between techniques. Strategies for reducing error include attention to viewing conditions, training of the observers, availability of previous films and relevant clinical data, dual or multiple reporting, standardization of terminology and report format, and assistance from computers. Digital acquisition and display will probably not affect observer variation but the performance of radiologists, as measured by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, may be improved by computer-directed search for specific image features. Other current developments show that where image features can be comprehensively described, computer analysis can replace the perception function of the observer, whilst the function of interpretation can in some cases be performed better by artificial neural networks. However, computer-assisted diagnosis is still in its infancy and complete replacement of the human observer is as yet a remote possibility.