Commentary on discrepancies in discrepancy meetings

Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable?

Errors and discrepancies in radiology practice are uncomfortably common, with an estimated day-to-day rate of 3-5% of studies reported, and much higher rates reported in many targeted studies. Nonetheless, the meaning of the terms "error" and "discrepancy" and the relationship to medical negligence are frequently misunderstood. This review outlines the incidence of such events, the ways they can be categorized to aid understanding, and potential contributing factors, both human- and system-based. Possible strategies to minimise error are considered, along with the means of dealing with perceived underperformance when it is identified. The inevitability of imperfection is explained, while the importance of striving to minimise such imperfection is emphasised.

TEACHING POINTS

• Discrepancies between radiology reports and subsequent patient outcomes are not inevitably errors. • Radiologist reporting performance cannot be perfect, and some errors are inevitable. • Error or discrepancy in radiology reporting does not equate negligence. • Radiologist errors occur for many reasons, both human- and system-derived. • Strategies exist to minimise error causes and to learn from errors made.

[Effect of Reconstruction Technique for Metal Artifact Reduction in Computed Tomography by Changing Display Field of View]

We evaluated the effect of orthopedic-metal artifact reduction (O-MAR) for metal artifact in computed tomography with 73 simulated seeds for brachytherapy in different sizes of display field of view (DFOV) obtained by helical scan under the same clinical scan condition. The metal artifacts were analyzed with the Gumbel's method by changing DFOV sizes 80 mm, 160 mm, and 320 mm. Gumbel distribution, scale parameter (γ), and location parameter (β) of the metal artifacts with O-MAR were compared with that of the metal artifacts with filtered back projection (FBP). In conclusion, it was considered that the effect of metal artifact reduction with O-MAR was influenced by DFOV size in this study. The reduction rates of scale parameter (γ) were 22.3%, 21.3%, and 10.0% in DFOV 80 mm, 160 mm, and 320 mm, respectively. The reduction rates of location parameter (β) were 27.4%, 23.4 %, and 9.8%. Therefore, the effect of metal artifact reduction with O-MAR showed the tendency of increasing with decreasing DFOV size.

Interobserver agreement in the interpretation of outpatient head CT scans in an academic neuroradiology practice

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The repeatability of head CT interpretations may be studied in different contexts: in peer-review quality assurance interventions or in interobserver agreement studies. We assessed the agreement between double-blind reports of outpatient CT scans in a routine academic practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Outpatient head CT scans (119 patients) were randomly selected to be read twice in a blinded fashion by 8 neuroradiologists practicing in an academic institution during 1 year. Nonstandardized reports were analyzed to extract 4 items (answer to the clinical question, major findings, incidental findings, recommendations for further investigations) from each report, to identify agreement or discrepancies (classified as class 2 [mentioned or not mentioned or contradictions between reports], class 1 [mentioned in both reports but diverging in location or severity], 0 [concordant], or not applicable), according to a standardized data-extraction form. Agreement regarding the presence or absence of clinically significant or incidental findings was studied with κ statistics.

RESULTS

The interobserver agreement regarding head CT studies with positive and negative results for clinically pertinent findings was 0.86 (0.77-0.95), but concordance was only 75.6% (67.2%-82.5%). Class 2 discrepancy was found in 15.1%; class 1 discrepancy, in 9.2% of cases. The κ value for reporting incidental findings was 0.59 (0.45-0.74), with class 2 discrepancy in 29.4% of cases. Most discrepancies did not impact the clinical management of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Discrepancies in double-blind interpretations of head CT examinations were more common than reported in peer-review quality assurance programs.