The provision of emergency radiology services and potential radiologist workforce crisis: is there a role for the emergency-dedicated radiologist?

How did radiologists' diagnostic performance has changed in COVID-19 pneumonia: A single-centre retrospective study

AIMS

Delay and false positivity in PCR test results have necessitated accurate chest CT reporting for the management of patients with COVID-19-suspected symptoms. Pandemic related workload and level of experience on covid-dedicated chest CT scans might have affected the diagnostic performance of on-call radiologists. The aim of this study was to reveal the interpretation errors (IEs) in chest CT reports of COVID-19-suspected patients admitted to the Emergency Room (ER).

METHODS

Chest CT scans between March and June 2020 were re-evaluated and compared with the former reports and PCR test results. CT scan results were classified into four groups. Parenchymal involvement ratios, radiology departments' workload, COVID-19-related educational activities have been examined.

RESULTS

Out of 5721 Chest CT scans, 783 CTs belonging to 664 patients (340 female, 324 male) were included in this study. PCR test was positive in 398; negative in 385 cases. PCR positivity was found to be highest in "normal" and "typical for covid" groups whereas lowest in "atypical for covid" and "not covid" groups. 5%-25% parenchymal involvement ratio was found in 84.2% of the cases. Regarding the number of chest CT scans performed, radiologists' workload has found to be increased six-folds. With the re-evaluation, a total of 145 IEs (18.5%) have been found. IEs were mostly precipitated in the first two months (88.3%) and mostly in the "not covid" class (60%) regardless of PCR positivity. COVID-19 and radiology entitled educational activities along with the ER admission rates within the first two months of the pandemic have seemed to be related to the decline of IEs within time.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 pandemic made a great impact on radiology departments with an inevitable burden of daily chest CT reporting. This workload and concomitant factors have effects on diagnostic challenges in COVID-19 pneumonia.

Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology

OBJECTIVE

 To estimate the human resources required for a retrospective quality review of different percentages of all routine diagnostic procedures in the Department of Radiology at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Three board-certified radiologists retrospectively evaluated the quality of the radiological reports of a total of 150 examinations (5 different examination types: abdominal CT, chest CT, mammography, conventional X-ray images and abdominal MRI). Each report was assigned a RADPEER score of 1 to 3 (score 1: concur with previous interpretation; score 2: discrepancy in interpretation/not ordinarily expected to be made; score 3: discrepancy in interpretation/should be made most of the time). The time (in seconds, s) required for each review was documented and compared. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to calculate the total workload for reviewing different percentages of the total annual reporting volume of the clinic.

RESULTS

 Among the total of 450 reviews analyzed, 91.1 % (410/450) were assigned a score of 1 and 8.9 % (40/450) were assigned scores of 2 or 3. The average time (in seconds) required for a peer review was 60.4 s (min. 5 s, max. 245 s). The reviewer with the greatest clinical experience needed significantly less time for reviewing the reports than the two reviewers with less clinical expertise (p < 0.05). Average review times were longer for discrepant ratings with a score of 2 or 3 (p < 0.05). The total time requirement calculated for reviewing all 5 types of examination for one year would be more than 1200 working hours.

CONCLUSION

 A retrospective peer review of reports of radiological examinations using the RADPEER system requires considerable human resources. However, to improve quality, it seems feasible to peer review at least a portion of the total yearly reporting volume.

KEY POINTS

  · A systematic retrospective assessment of the content of radiological reports using the RADPEER system involves high personnel costs.. · The retrospective assessment of all reports of a clinic or practice seems unrealistic due to the lack of highly specialized personnel.. · At least part of all reports should be reviewed with the aim of improving the quality of reports..

CITATION FORMAT

· Maurer MH, Brönnimann M, Schroeder C et al. Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 160 - 167.

Enduring somatic threat perceptions and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms in survivors of cardiac events

Post-traumatic stress disorder due to acute cardiovascular events may be uniquely defined by enduring perceptions of somatic threat. We tested whether post-traumatic stress disorder at 1 month post-acute coronary syndrome indeed required both high peritraumatic threat during the acute coronary syndrome and ongoing cardiac threat perceptions. We assessed peritraumatic threat during emergency department enrollment of 284 patients with a provisional acute coronary syndrome diagnosis and cardiac threat perceptions and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms 1 month post-discharge. In a multiple regression model with adjustment for important covariates, emergency department threat perceptions were associated with higher 1 month post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms only among those with high levels of ongoing cardiac threat.

Comparing the accuracy of initial head CT reporting by radiologists, radiology trainees, neuroradiographers and emergency doctors

OBJECTIVES

Demand for out-of-hours cranial CT imaging is increasing and some departments have considered addressing this shortfall by allowing non-radiologists to provisionally report imaging studies. The aim of this work was to assess whether it is appropriate for non-radiologists to report head CTs by comparing the misreporting rates of those who regularly report head CTs with two groups of non-radiologists who do not usually report them: neuroradiographers and emergency doctors.

METHODS

62 candidates were asked to report 30 head CTs, two-thirds of which were abnormal, and the results were compared by non-parametric statistical analysis.

RESULTS

There was no evidence of a difference in the score between neuroradiographers, neuroradiologists and general consultant radiologists. Neuroradiographers scored significantly higher than senior radiology trainees, and the emergency doctors scored least well.

CONCLUSION

The results of this preliminary study show that appropriately trained neuroradiographers are competent at reporting the range of abnormalities assessed with this test and that their misreporting rates are similar to those who already independently report these studies.