The value of official reinterpretation of trauma computed tomography scans from referring hospitals

Transfer Patient Imaging: Assessment of the Impact of Discrepancies Identified by Emergency Radiologists

PURPOSE

Advanced imaging examinations of emergently transferred patients (ETPs) are overread to various degrees by receiving institutions. The practical clinical impact of these second opinions has not been studied in the past. The purpose of this study is to determine if emergency radiology overreads change emergency medicine decision making on ETPs in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

All CT and MRI examinations on patients transferred to a level I trauma center during calendar year 2018 were routinely overread by emergency radiologists and discrepancies with the outside report electronically flagged. All discrepant reports compared with the outside interpretations were reviewed by one of four emergency medicine physicians. Comparing the original and final reports, reviewers identified changes in patient management that could be attributed to the additional information contained in the final report. Changes in patient care were categorized as affecting ED management, disposition, follow-up, or consulting services.

RESULTS

Over a 12-month period, 5,834 patients were accepted in transfer. Among 5,631 CT or MRI examinations with outside reports available, 669 examinations (12%) had at least one discrepancy in the corresponding outside report. In 219 examinations (33%), ED management was changed by discrepancies noted on the final report; patient disposition was affected in 84 (13%), outpatient follow-up in 54 (8%), and selection of consulting services in 411 (61%), and ED stay was extended in 544 (81%). Discrepant findings affected decision making in 613 of 669 of examinations (92%).

CONCLUSION

Emergency radiology overreading of transferred patients' advanced imaging examinations provided actionable additional information to emergency medicine physicians in the care of 613 of 669 (92%) examinations with discrepant findings. This added value is worth the effort to design workflows to routinely overread CT and MRI examinations of ETPs.

Rates and clinical impact of discordant X-ray and CT imaging in transfers to a pediatric emergency department

OBJECTIVES

Children are often transferred to a Pediatric Emergency Department (PED) for definitive care after completion of diagnostic imaging. There is a paucity of data on the concordance rates of interpretation of imaging studies between referral and PED. Our objective is to describe the rates and clinical impact of discordant interpretation of X-rays and CT in children transferred to a PED.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients over a 12-month period from 12/1/2017-11/30/2018 with X-ray (XR) and CT performed prior to transfer to our PED. We compared referral radiology interpretations to those of pediatric radiologists to determine concordance. Encounters with discordant imaging interpretations were further evaluated for clinical impact (none, minor or major) based on need for additional laboratory workup, consultation, and changes in management and disposition.

RESULTS

We analyzed 899 patient encounters. There were high rates of concordance in both XR and CT interpretation (668/743; 89.9%, 95% CI 0.87-0.91 and 205/235; 87.2%, 95% CI 0.82-0.91, respectively). XR discordance resulted in minor clinical impact in 34 patients (45%, 95% CI 0.35-0.57) and a major clinical impact in 28 patients (37%, 95% CI 0.27-0.49). CT discordance resulted in minor clinical impact in 10 patients (33%, 95% CI 0.19-0.51) of patients and major clinical impact in 15 patients (50%, 95% CI 0.33-0.67). The most common discordances with major clinical impact were related to pneumonia on XR chest and appendicitis or inflammatory bowel disease on CT abdomen.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients transferred to the PED, concordance of XR and CT interpretations was high. A majority of discordant interpretations led to clinical impact meaningful to the patient and emergency medicine (EM) physician. Referring EM physicians might consider the benefit of pediatric radiology consultation upon transfer, especially for imaging diagnoses related to pneumonia, appendicitis, or inflammatory bowel disease.

Impact of a statewide computed tomography scan educational campaign on radiation dose and repeat CT scan rates for transferred injured children

Purpose

Research demonstrates that children receive twice as much medical radiation from Computed Tomography (CT) scans performed at non-pediatric facilities as equivalent CTs performed at pediatric trauma centers (PTCs). In 2014, AFMC outreach staff educated Emergency Department (ED) staff on appropriate CT imaging utilization to reduce unnecessary medical radiation exposure. We set out to determine the educational campaign's impact on injured children received radiation dose.

Methods

All injured children who underwent CT imaging and were transferred to a Level I PTC during 2010 to 2013 (pre-campaign) and 2015 (post-campaign) were reviewed. Patient demographics, mode of transportation, ED length of stay, scanned body region, injury severity score, and trauma center level were analyzed. Median effective radiation dose (ERD) controlled for each variable, pre-campaign and post-campaign, was compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Results

Three hundred eighty-five children under 17 years were transferred from 45 and 48 hospitals, pre- and post-campaign. Most (43%) transferring hospitals were urban or critical access hospitals (30%). Pre- and post-campaign patient demographics were similar. We analyzed 482 and 398 CT scans pre- and post-campaign. Overall, median ERD significantly decreased from 3.80 to 2.80. Abdominal CT scan ERD declined significantly from 7.2 to 4.13 (P-value 0.03). Head CT scan ERD declined from 3.27 to 2.45 (P-value < 0.0001).

Conclusion

A statewide, CT scan educational campaign contributed to ERD decline (lower dose scans and fewer repeat scans) among transferred injured children seen at PTCs. State-level interventions are feasible and can be effective in changing radiology provider practices.

Second-Opinion Reads in Interstitial Lung Disease Imaging: Added Value of Subspecialty Interpretation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine how often a second-opinion interpretation of interstitial lung disease (ILD) by an academic cardiothoracic radiologist is discordant with the initial interpretation by a nonacademic radiologists and how often the clinical diagnosis determined by multidisciplinary consensus agrees with the initial and second-opinion interpretations.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 364 consecutive second-opinion CT examination reports of imaging from nonacademic radiology practices from July 2014 to May 2016. The second-opinion interpretations, provided by seven fellowship-trained cardiothoracic radiologists, were compared with the initial interpretations and the clinical diagnoses determined by multidisciplinary consensus.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-six consecutive reports met the inclusion criteria, and two hundred had findings of ILD. The initial interpretations lacked specific diagnoses in 41% of reports, but the second-opinion reports lacked specific diagnoses in only 7%. When a diagnosis was provided, the second-opinion diagnosis disagreed with the initial interpretation in 25% of cases. The clinical-consensus diagnosis was concordant with that of the academic radiologists 85% of the time but concordant with the initial interpretation only 44% of the time. The academic radiologists' diagnostic sensitivity was higher than that of the initial radiologists for the four most common diagnoses: usual interstitial pneumonitis (0.91 versus 0.4), sarcoidosis (0.94 versus 0.60), hypersensitivity pneumonitis (0.79 versus 0.17), and nonspecific interstitial pneumonitis (0.72 versus 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Academic cardiothoracic radiologists were more likely to provide specific diagnoses for ILD, and these diagnoses were more likely to be concordant with the multidisciplinary consensus.

Pediatric cervical spine injuries on CT: difference in accuracy of interpretations by pediatric versus non-pediatric radiologists

PURPOSE

To retrospectively compare the accuracy of interpretation of initial cervical computerized tomography (CCT) by a non-pediatric radiologist (NPR) versus a pediatric radiologist (PR).

METHODS

IRB approval and consent waiver were granted to review all injured children from 2010 to 2014 in the trauma registry with CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine. Patients with negative CCT who subsequently had positive MRI from a single institution comprised the study group. Patients with negative CCT and MRI, matched by age, gender, and severity scores, comprised the control group. The CCTs from both groups were initially interpreted at the time of service by a NPR. Subsequently, a single PR with 20 years of experience blinded to clinical/imaging data reinterpreted these CCT examinations. CT interpretations were then compared with MRI results and evaluated for statistical significance using SSPS software. The data analysis utilized summary statistics, two-tailed binomial test, and univariate χ² test. Significance for all comparisons was assessed at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

The study group was comprised of the 21 patients with negative CCT and positive MRI. Of the cohort included, 76% (16) were male and 24% (5) were female. The age range was 1 month-17 years, with a mean age of 9.7 years. CCT interpretation by NPR had a specificity of 91.7% (sensitivity 71.2%, positive predictive value 81.3%, and negative predictive value 86.3%) compared with results of MRI. Six of the 21 negative CCTs were interpreted by the PR as positive, mainly craniocervical junction injuries, and confirmed by MRI (28.6%, P < .001 compared with the NPR); no control CCT was interpreted by the PR as positive (sensitivity 100%, positive predictive value 100%, and negative predictive value 58.3%).

CONCLUSION

In our retrospective study, a pediatric radiologist has improved recognition of pediatric cervical spine injuries on CT compared with non-pediatric radiologist.

Ensuring Appropriateness of Pediatric Second Opinion Consultations

PURPOSE

We sought to evaluate discrepancy rates between outside interpretations, radiology trainee preliminary reports, and subspecialist attending final interpretations for pediatric second opinion consultations on plain film and computed tomography imaging and to evaluate the impact of a process improvement for second opinion consultations.

METHODS

Of a total of 572 requests for second opinion consultations during 1-year preintervention period, we utilized RADPEER to score concurrence of 158 requests which occurred overnight and included outside radiologist interpretations and resident preliminary reports. In consultation with clinician committees, we developed new guidelines for requesting second opinion consultations. We evaluated the impact on the number of consultations for the 1-year period following implementation of this process improvement.

RESULTS

There was concurrence between the outside interpretation and pediatric subspecialist second opinion in 146 of 158 cases (92%). There was concurrence between the radiology resident and pediatric subspecialist second opinion in 145 of 158 cases (92%). During the 1-year period following our process improvement implementation, the total number of second opinion consultations decreased to 185 (from 572, a decrease of 68%) and the number of overnight requests for resident preliminary reports decreased to 11 (from 158, a decrease of 93%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high degree of concurrence between interpretations provided by outside radiologists, overnight radiology residents, and attending pediatric radiologists at our institution. Analyzing institutional-specific discrepancy rates is a valuable first step in partnering with clinicians to develop appropriate guidelines for second opinion consultations.

Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review

Objectives

Double reading in diagnostic radiology can find discrepancies in the original report, but a systematic program of double reading is resource consuming. There are conflicting opinions on the value of double reading. The purpose of the current study was to perform a systematic review on the value of double reading.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to find studies calculating the rate of misses and overcalls with the aim of establishing the added value of double reading by human observers.

Results

The literature search resulted in 1610 hits. After abstract and full-text reading, 46 articles were selected for analysis. The rate of discrepancy varied from 0.4 to 22% depending on study setting. Double reading by a sub-specialist, in general, led to high rates of changed reports.

Conclusions

The systematic review found rather low discrepancy rates. The benefit of double reading must be balanced by the considerable number of working hours a systematic double-reading scheme requires. A more profitable scheme might be to use systematic double reading for selected, high-risk examination types. A second conclusion is that there seems to be a value of sub-specialisation for increased report quality. A consequent implementation of this would have far-reaching organisational effects.

Key Points

• In double reading, two or more radiologists read the same images.

• A systematic literature review was performed.

• The discrepancy rates varied from 0.4 to 22% in various studies.

• Double reading by sub-specialists found high discrepancy rates.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s13244-018-0599-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI Versus CT for the Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis in Children and Young Adults

OBJECTIVE

Appendicitis is frequently diagnosed in the emergency department, most commonly using CT. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI with that of contrast-enhanced CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adolescents when interpreted by abdominal radiologists and pediatric radiologists.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Our study included a prospectively enrolled cohort of 48 patients (12-20 years old) with nontraumatic abdominal pain who underwent CT and MRI. Fellowship-trained abdominal and pediatric radiologists reviewed all CT and MRI studies in randomized order, blinded to patient outcome. Likelihood for appendicitis was rated on a 5-point scale (1, definitely not appendicitis; 5, definitely appendicitis) for CT, the unenhanced portion of the MRI, and the entire contrast-enhanced MRI study. ROC curves were generated and AUC compared for each scan type for all six readers and then stratified by radiologist type. Image test characteristics, interrater reliability, and reading times were compared.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity were 85.9% (95% CI, 76.2-92.7%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 89.7-96.7%) for unenhanced MRI, 93.6% (95% CI, 85.6-97.9%) and 94.3% (95% CI, 90.2-97%) for contrast-enhanced MRI, and 93.6% (95% CI, 85.6-97.9%) and 94.3% (95% CI, 90.2-97%) for CT. No difference was found in the diagnostic accuracy or interpretation time when comparing abdominal radiologists to pediatric radiologists (CT, 3.0 min vs 2.8 min; contrast-enhanced MRI, 2.4 min vs 1.8 min; unenhanced MRI, 1.5 min vs 2.3 min). Substantial agreement between abdominal and pediatric radiologists was seen for all methods (κ = 0.72-0.83).

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis was very similar to CT. No statistically significant difference in accuracy was observed between imaging modality or radiologist subspecialty.

Diagnosis value of multi-slice spiral CT in renal trauma

Computed tomography (CT) is most commonly used as a noninvasive approach in diagnosis of internal organ injures. Use of multi-slice spiral CT becomes more popular in diagnosis of trauma because of its ability to generate 3D volumetric information. This study evaluated the diagnostic value of multi-slice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) with enhanced scanning in renal trauma. In total, 126 patients with kidney injury underwent MSCT scanning from a single hospital in the southern of China between January 2012 and February 2016. According to kidney injury grading standards of American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), 30 were diagnosed and classified in level I, 26 in level II, 42 in level III, 17 in level IV, 11 in level V. The outcomes of MSCT enhanced scanning achieve a 100% diagnostic accuracy rate, which was confirmed by surgical findings. We concluded that the enhanced MSCT scan permits reliable detection of renal trauma and the associated organ or tissue injuries, providing important clinical value for the diagnosis and classification of renal trauma or internal organ injures.