Comparison of Discrepancy Rates in Resident and Faculty Interpretations of On-Call PE CT and V/Q Scans: Is One Study More Reliable During Off Hours?

Availability of a final abdominopelvic CT report before emergency department disposition: risk-adjusted outcomes in patients with abdominal pain

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether availability of a final radiologist report versus an experienced senior resident preliminary report prior to disposition affects major care outcomes in emergency department (ED) patient presenting with abdominal pain undergoing abdominopelvic CT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-institution, IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective cohort study included 5019 ED patients with abdominal pain undergoing abdominopelvic CT from October 2015 to April 2019. Patients were categorized as being dispositioned after either an experienced senior resident preliminary report (i.e., overnight model) or the final attending radiologist interpretation (i.e., daytime model) of the CT was available. Multivariable regression models were built accounting for demographic data, clinical factors (vital signs, ED triage score, laboratory data), and disposition timing to analyze the impact on four important patient outcomes: inpatient admission (primary outcome), readmission (within 30 days), second operation within 30 days, and death.

RESULTS

In the setting of an available experienced senior resident preliminary report, timing of the final radiologist report (before vs. after disposition) was not a significant multivariable predictor of inpatient admission (p = 0.63), readmission within 30 days (p = 0.66), second operation within 30 days (p = 0.09), or death (p = 0.63). Unadjusted event rates for overnight vs daytime reports, respectively, were 37.2% vs. 38.0% (inpatient admission), 15.9% vs. 16.5% (30-day readmission), 0.65% vs. 0.3% (second operation within 30 days), and 0.85% vs. 1.3% (death).

CONCLUSION

Given the presence of an experienced senior resident preliminary report, availability of a final radiology report prior to ED disposition did not affect four major clinical care outcomes of patients with abdominal pain undergoing abdominopelvic CT.

Radiologist Quality Assurance by Nonradiologists at Tumor Board

PURPOSE

To explore the use of nonradiologists as a method to efficiently reduce bias in the assessment of radiologist performance using a hepatobiliary tumor board as a case study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant prospective quality assurance (QA) effort. Consecutive patients with CT or MR imaging reviewed at one hepatobiliary tumor board between February 2016 and October 2016 (n = 265) were included. All presentations were assigned prospective anonymous QA scores by an experienced nonradiologist hepatobiliary provider based on contemporaneous comparison of the imaging interpretation at a tumor board and the original interpretation(s): concordant, minor discordance, major discordance. Major discordance was defined as a discrepancy that may affect clinical management. Minor discordance was defined as a discrepancy unlikely to affect clinical management. All discordances and predicted management changes were retrospectively confirmed by the liver tumor program medical director. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine what factors best predict discordant reporting.

RESULTS

Approximately one-third (30% [79 of 265]) of reports were assigned a discordance, including 51 (19%) minor and 28 (11%) major discordances. The most common related to mass size (41% [32 of 79]), tumor stage and extent (24% [19 of 79]), and assigned LI-RADS v2014 score (22% [17 of 79]). One radiologist had 11.8-fold greater odds of discordance (P = .002). Nine other radiologists were similar (P = .10-.99). Radiologists presenting their own studies had 4.5-fold less odds of discordance (P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

QA conducted in line with tumor board workflow can enable efficient assessment of radiologist performance. Discordant interpretations are commonly (30%) reported by nonradiologist providers.

The clinical impact of subspecialized radiologist reinterpretation of abdominal imaging studies, with analysis of the types and relative frequency of interpretation discrepancies

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this study was to determine the clinical impact and value of abdominal imaging reinterpretations by subspecialized abdominal imagers.

METHODS

Secondary interpretations for computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR), and ultrasound (US) abdominal studies performed outside our institution over a 7-month period were retrospectively compared to the primary (outside) interpretation, with interpretive differences recorded. Clinical notes, pathology and subsequent imaging determined ground truth diagnosis and the clinical impact of any interpretive discrepancies were graded as having high, medium, or little/no clinical impact. Interpretive comparisons were scored into categories: (1) no difference; (2) incidental findings of no clinical impact; (3) finding not reported; (4) significance of finding undercalled; (5) significance of finding overcalled; (6) finding misinterpreted; and (7) multiple discrepancy types in one report.

RESULTS

398 report comparisons were reviewed on 380 patients. There were 300 CT, 60 MR, and 38 US examinations. The primary report had 5.0% (20/398) high clinical impact interpretive discrepancies and 7.5% (30/398) medium clinical impact discrepancies. The subspecialized secondary report had no high clinical impact discrepancies and 8/398 (2.0%) medium clinical impact discrepancies. In order of frequency, high and medium impact discrepancies in the primary report consisted of 50% overcalls, 26% unreported findings, 18% undercalls, 4% misinterpretations, and 2% multiple discrepancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Subspecialty review of abdominal imaging exams can provide clinical benefit. Half of the discrepancies in this series of abdominal reinterpretations were due to overcalls.

Preserving the educational value of call in a diagnostic radiology residency program

PURPOSE

Our study was designed to determine residents' opinions of the advantages, disadvantages and educational value of a traditional "Tandem Call" (TC) model as compared to night float (NF). Because TC is more representative of adult learning principles and constructivist theory, we hypothesized that resident satisfaction and educational outcomes would demonstrate a preference for, and the educational efficacy of, the TC model.

METHODS

We surveyed all residents in a university-based radiology residency on their opinions of TC and its educational value. Aggregate data from annual Graduate Medical Education Committee institutional surveys (2008-2012) and annual radiology alumni surveys (2009-2012) were reviewed as measures of satisfaction with TC. Performance on the ABR oral exam was a proxy for educational outcome. Quality data for the year of study and prior years in which TC was in effect were reviewed as a measure of patient safety.

RESULTS

The great majority of respondents attributed confidence/competence on call and added value to their education directly to TC. A majority believed that teamwork required for TC facilitated more positive relationships among residents and more peer teaching. Most said that they would not prefer NF. Almost all believed indirect supervision with attending backup aided in developing confidence in performance. Quality data confirmed a low number of discrepancies between preliminary resident and final attending reads.

CONCLUSIONS

TC provides a more consistent call experience throughout residency than NF. TC is valued by residents, facilitates retrieval-based learning and development of independence and efficiency, and parallels essential elements of team-based learning. Quality data suggests that lack of 24-hour attending supervision is not detrimental to patient safety.

CT in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of interpretation discrepancy rates

PURPOSE

To use meta-analysis to determine the discrepancy rate when interpreting computed tomography (CT) studies performed in adult patients and to determine whether discrepancy rate differs on the basis of body region or level of radiologist training.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1946 to June 2012 by using the combination "radiology AND (error OR peer review)." Two reviewers independently selected studies that met the inclusion criteria and extracted study data. Total and major discrepancy rates were investigated with a random-effects meta-analysis, and subgroups were compared by using the χ(2) Q statistic. Subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of the level of training of the initial radiologist and the body system scanned.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria (388 123 CT examinations). The pooled total discrepancy rate was 7.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.6%, 10.3%), and the major discrepancy rate was 2.4% (95% CI: 1.7%, 3.2%). The pooled major discrepancy rate was comparable for staff (2.9%; 95% CI: 1.2%, 6.7%) and residents (2.2%; 95% CI: 1.7%, 2.9%) (Q = 0.92, P = .633). The pooled major discrepancy rates for head CT (0.8%; 95% CI: 0.4%, 1.6%) and spine CT (0.7%; 95% CI: 0.2%, 2.7%) were lower than those for chest CT (2.8%; 95% CI: 1.5%, 5.4%) and abdominal CT (2.6%; 95% CI: 1.0%, 6.7%) (Q = 8.28, P = .041). Lack of blinding of the reference radiologist to the initial report was associated with a lower major discrepancy rate (2.0%; 95% CI: 1.4%, 2.7%; 43 studies) than when blinding was present (12.1%; 95% CI: 4.4%, 29.4%; five studies) (Q = 10.65, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Potentially useful reference ranges were identified in the subgroup analyses on the basis of body region scanned at adult CT. However, considerable heterogeneity that is only partially explained by subgroup analysis signifies that further research is necessary--particularly regarding the question of blinding of the reference radiologist.