Evidence-based anatomical review areas derived from systematic analysis of cases from a radiological departmental discrepancy meeting

Analysis of "visible in retrospect" to monitor false-negative findings in radiological reports

PURPOSE

False-negative findings in radiological reports can lead to serious adverse patient outcomes. We determined the frequency and tendency of false-negative findings in radiological reports by searching for words related to "visible in retrospect".

METHODS

In the period of 34 months, we extracted radiological reports containing words related to "visible in retrospect". Of these reports, we extracted false-negative findings that were not described in past reports and were first detected retrospectively. Misinterpretations were excluded. The occurrences of the terms that we identified were analyzed by all examinations, modality, month, and anatomical and lesion classifications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 135,251 examinations, 941 reports (0.71%) with 962 findings were detected, with an average of 1.4 findings per business day. By modality, 713 of 81,899 (0.87%) CT examinations, 208 of 36,174 (0.57%) MR, 34 of 9,585 (0.35%) FDG-PET-CT, 2 of 2,258 (0.09%) digital radiography, and 5 of 5,335 (0.09%) other nuclear medicine examinations were found. By anatomical classification, there were 383 (40%) in chest, 353 (37%) in abdomen, 162 (17%) in head, 42 (4.4%) in face and neck, 9 (0.93%) in extremity, and 13 (1.4%) in others. By lesion classification, we identified 665 (69%) for localized lesion, 170 (18%) for vascular lesion, 83 (8.6%) for inflammatory lesion, 14 (1.5%) for traumatic lesion, 12 (1.2%) for organ dysfunction, 11 (1.1%) for degenerative lesion, and 7 (0.7%) for the others. Notable high-frequency specific site diseases by modality were 210 (22%) of localized lesions in lung on CT.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated that missed lung localized lesions on CT, which account for about a fifth of false-negative findings, were the most common false-negative finding.

How to Read an Abdominal CT: Insights from the Visual and Cognitive Sciences Translated for Clinical Practice

When first learning abdominal CT studies, residents are often given little concrete, practical direction. There is, however, a large literature from the visual and cognitive sciences that can provide guidance towards search strategies that maximize efficiency and comprehensiveness. This literature has not penetrated radiology teaching to any great extent. In this article, we will examine the current pedagogy (and why that falls short), why untutored search fails, where misses occur in abdomen/pelvis CT, why these misses occur where they do, how expert radiologists search 3d image stacks, and how novices might expedite the acquisition of expertise.

Computational modeling of human reasoning processes for interpretable visual knowledge: a case study with radiographers

Visual reasoning is critical in many complex visual tasks in medicine such as radiology or pathology. It is challenging to explicitly explain reasoning processes due to the dynamic nature of real-time human cognition. A deeper understanding of such reasoning processes is necessary for improving diagnostic accuracy and computational tools. Most computational analysis methods for visual attention utilize black-box algorithms which lack explainability and are therefore limited in understanding the visual reasoning processes. In this paper, we propose a computational method to quantify and dissect visual reasoning. The method characterizes spatial and temporal features and identifies common and contrast visual reasoning patterns to extract significant gaze activities. The visual reasoning patterns are explainable and can be compared among different groups to discover strategy differences. Experiments with radiographers of varied levels of expertise on 10 levels of visual tasks were conducted. Our empirical observations show that the method can capture the temporal and spatial features of human visual attention and distinguish expertise level. The extracted patterns are further examined and interpreted to showcase key differences between expertise levels in the visual reasoning processes. By revealing task-related reasoning processes, this method demonstrates potential for explaining human visual understanding.

The Back Alleys and Dark Corners of Abdomen and Pelvis Computed Tomography: The Most Frequent Sites of Missed Findings in the Multiplanar Era

Objectives

Radiologists reading multiplanar abdominal/pelvic computed tomography (CT) are vulnerable to oversight of specific anatomic areas, leading to perceptual errors (misses). The aims of this study are to identify common sites of major perceptual error at our institution and then to put these in context with earlier studies to produce a comprehensive overview.

Material and Methods

We reviewed our quality assurance database over an 8-year period for cases of major perceptual error on CT examinations of the abdomen and pelvis. A major perceptual error was defined as a missed finding that had altered management in a way potentially detrimental to the patient. Record was made of patient age, gender, study indication, study priority (stat/routine), and use of IV and/or oral contrast. Anatomic locations were subdivided as lung bases, liver, pancreas, kidneys, spleen, mesentery, peritoneum, retroperitoneum, small bowel, colon, appendix, vasculature, body wall, and bones.

Results

A total of 216 missed findings were identified in 201 patients. The most common indication for the study was cancer follow-up (71%) followed by infection (11%) and abdominal pain (6%). The most common anatomic regions of error were the liver (15%), peritoneum (10%), body wall (9%), retroperitoneum (8%), and mesentery (6%). Data from other studies were reorganized into congruent categories for comparison.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that the most common sites of significant missed findings on multiplanar abdominal/pelvic CT included the mesentery, peritoneum, body wall, bowel, vasculature, and the liver in the arterial phase. Data from other similar studies were reorganized into congruent categories to provide a comprehensive overview.

Does learning from mistakes have to be painful? Analysis of 5 years' experience from the Leeds radiology educational cases meetings identifies common repetitive reporting errors and suggests acknowledging and celebrating excellence (ACE) as a more positive way of teaching the same lessons

BACKGROUND

The Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) and General Medical Council (GMC) encourage learning from mistakes. But negative feedback can be a demoralising process with adverse implications for staff morale, clinical engagement, team working and perhaps even patient outcomes. We first reviewed the literature regarding positive feedback and teamworking. We wanted to see if we could reconcile our guidance to review and learn from mistakes with evidence that positive interactions had a better effect on teamworking and outcomes than negative interactions. We then aimed to review and categorise the over 600 (mainly discrepancy) cases discussed in our educational cases meeting into educational 'themes'. Finally, we explored whether we could use these educational themes to deliver the same teaching points in a more positive way.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The attendance records, programmes and educational cases from 30 consecutive bimonthly meetings between 2011 and 2017 were prospectively collated and retrospectively analysed. Six hundred and thirty-two cases were collated over the study period where 76% of the cases submitted were discrepancies, or perceived errors. Eight percent were 'good spots' where examples of good calls, excellent reporting, exemplary practice or subtle findings that were successfully reported. Eight percent were educational cases in which no mistake had been made. The remaining 7% included procedural complications or system errors.

CONCLUSION

By analysing the pattern of discrepancies in a department and delivering the teaching in a less negative way, the 'lead' of clinical errors can be turned in to the 'gold' of useful educational tools. Interrogating the whole database periodically can enable a more constructive, wider view of the meeting itself, highlight recurrent deficiencies in practice, and point to where the need for continuing medical training is greatest. Three ways in which our department have utilised this material are outlined: the use of 'good spots', arrangement of targeted teaching and production of specialist educational material. These techniques can all contribute to a more positive learning experience with the emphasis on acknowledging and celebrating excellence (ACE).