Alterations of preliminary readings on radiographic examinations minimally affect outcomes of trauma patients discharged from the emergency department

Accuracy of Brain Computed Tomography Diagnosis by Emergency Medicine Physicians

Objectives

The objective of this study is to prospectively analyze emergency physicians' (EP's) abilities to interpret noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) brain images in a blinded fashion and assess whether they can make medical decisions solely based on their interpretations.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted at the emergency department (ED), King Saud University Medical City (KSU-MC), Saudi Arabia, over a period of one year, from May 2014 to May 2015. Any patient who underwent plain brain NCCT during the study period in our ED was included in this study. An independent attending neuroradiologist compared the EP's interpretations with the official final reports dictated by an on-call radiologist.

Results

A brain NCCT prospective chart audit of 1,524 patients was interpreted by ED physicians (EP) at KSU-MC from 2014–2015. The ages of patients were between 14 and 107 years, and the mean ± SD age was 45.6 ± 22.1 years. Radiological brain lesions were confirmed by EPs and radiology physicians in 230 (15.09) and 239 (15.68) patients, respectively, out of which concordance was observed in 170 (71.13) cases, with a kappa value of r = 0.675. Normal, chronic, and nil acute reports were made by EPs and radiology physicians for 1,295 (84.97) patients and 1,285 (84.32) patients, respectively, out of which concordance was observed in 1,225 (95.33) cases, with a kappa value of r = 0.672. The study results demonstrated that the overall agreement between EPs and radiologist specialists was 91.6, with a kappa value of .675 (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Emergency physicians are moderately accurate at interpreting brain NCCT compared to radiologists. More research is needed to discover the most cost-effective technique for reducing the number of significant misinterpretations.

A survey of policies and procedures on the communication and documentation of radiologic interpretations

Research into emergency medicine (EM) diagnostic errors identified imaging as a contributing factor in 94% of cases. Discrepancies between the preliminary (trainee) and the final (attending) diagnostic imaging interpretation represent a system issue that is particularly prone to creating diagnostic errors. Understanding the types of systematic communication and documentation strategies developed by academic radiology departments to address differences between preliminary and final radiology interpretations to clinicians are threshold steps toward minimizing this risk. This study investigates policies and practices associated with the communication and documentation of preliminary and final radiologic interpretations among U.S. academic radiology departments through a questionnaire directed at radiology department chairs.

Learning from diagnostic errors: a good way to improve education in radiology

PURPOSE

To evaluate the causes and the main categories of diagnostic errors in radiology as a method for improving education in radiology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Medline search was performed using PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD) for original research publications discussing errors in diagnosis with specific reference to radiology. The search strategy employed different combinations of the following terms: (1) diagnostic radiology, (2) radiological error and (3) medical negligence. This review was limited to human studies and to English-language literature. Two authors reviewed all the titles and subsequently the abstracts of 491 articles that appeared pertinent. Additional articles were identified by reviewing the reference lists of relevant papers. Finally, the full text of 75 selected articles was reviewed.

RESULTS

Several studies show that the etiology of radiological error is multi-factorial. The main category of claims against radiologists includes the misdiagnoses. Radiologic "misses" typically are one of two types: either missed fractures or missed diagnosis of cancer. The most commonly missed fractures include those in the femur, the navicular bone, and the cervical spine. The second type of "miss" is failure to diagnose cancer. Lack of appreciation of lung nodules on chest radiographs and breast lesions on mammograms are the predominant problems.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic errors should be considered not as signs of failure, but as learning opportunities.

Spectrum of diagnostic errors in radiology

Diagnostic errors are important in all branches of medicine because they are an indication of poor patient care. Since the early 1970s, physicians have been subjected to an increasing number of medical malpractice claims. Radiology is one of the specialties most liable to claims of medical negligence. Most often, a plaintiff's complaint against a radiologist will focus on a failure to diagnose. The etiology of radiological error is multi-factorial. Errors fall into recurrent patterns. Errors arise from poor technique, failures of perception, lack of knowledge and misjudgments. The work of diagnostic radiology consists of the complete detection of all abnormalities in an imaging examination and their accurate diagnosis. Every radiologist should understand the sources of error in diagnostic radiology as well as the elements of negligence that form the basis of malpractice litigation. Error traps need to be uncovered and highlighted, in order to prevent repetition of the same mistakes. This article focuses on the spectrum of diagnostic errors in radiology, including a classification of the errors, and stresses the malpractice issues in mammography, chest radiology and obstetric sonography. Missed fractures in emergency and communication issues between radiologists and physicians are also discussed.

Cranial computed tomography in trauma: the accuracy of interpretation by staff in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

Cranial computed tomography (CT) is replacing skull radiography in head trauma. Rapid radiological opinions on these images may not always be available. We assessed the ability of our permanent emergency department staff to interpret the images.

METHODS

A retrospective series of 100 consecutive cases was reviewed and interpreted by five permanent emergency department medical staff, and their interpretation compared with the consensus opinion of two radiologists.

RESULTS

An overall agreement of 86.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.4 to 89.9) was achieved, with a false negative rate of 4.2% (95% CI 3.9 to 4.3). No findings that would have changed the overnight management of any patient were missed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results for CT scans are similar to studies of interpretation of other radiographic images in emergency departments. Our emergency staff could safely make the initial interpretation of cranial CT images in trauma out of hours, and formal reporting may wait until a suitably experienced radiologist is available.

Formalized Radiology Rounds: The Final Component of the Tertiary Survey

BACKGROUND

An important objective of organized trauma care is to minimize delayed diagnoses and missed injuries. Discrepant interpretations of radiographs initially read by trauma surgeons represent a unique source of delayed diagnoses. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of formalized radiology rounds as a component of the tertiary survey.

METHODS

Over an 18-month period, 432 consecutive patients admitted to the trauma service at a Level II trauma center were studied prospectively. Radiographs obtained as part of the initial evaluation were initially interpreted by an attending trauma surgeon. All radiographs from the previous 24-hour admissions were reviewed by the trauma team with an attending radiologist at radiology rounds. New diagnoses (NDx) were defined as radiographic findings identified at radiology rounds that were not recorded by the trauma surgeon at the time of initial evaluation. The clinical significance of any NDx was described as follows: level 1, NDx resulted in significant morbidity/mortality; level 2, NDx resulted in alteration in care/no morbidity; level 3, NDx resulted in no alteration in care; level 4, NDx was an incidental finding by the radiologist; level 5, NDx by radiologist not definite.

RESULTS

Forty-seven NDx were identified in 42 patients (9.7%). Of the 47 NDx, 19 (40.4%) were level 3 and 28 (59.6%) were level 2. No level 1 NDx were identified. Forty-four changes in clinical management were documented in the level 2 group. Eight new consults were ordered in seven patients (16.7%): orthopedic surgery (n = 6), neurosurgery (n = 1), and physical therapy (n = 1). Seventeen additional diagnostic procedures were required in 16 patients (38.1%): plain radiographs (n = 11) and computed tomographic scans (n = 6). Nineteen therapeutic changes were required in 16 patients (38.1%): splint/immobilization device (n = 7), modified level of activity (n = 6), surgical procedures (n = 4), transfer (n = 1), and home equipment (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

A small number of radiographic findings are not detected by trauma surgeons during the initial evaluation. Although these findings are not of major clinical significance, the majority required some alteration in care plan. Formalized radiology rounds promotes clinical efficiency through early identification of these injuries, which facilitates any necessary alteration in the care plan.

23-Hour observation solely for identification of missed injuries after trauma: is it justified?

BACKGROUND

The use of an observation period to identify missed injuries in trauma patients has gained favor in recent years. This study was undertaken in a population of patients with minimal or no identified injuries to determine the following: whether a period of in-patient observation identifies missed injuries; demographic factors associated with missed injuries; and morbidity of missed injuries.

METHODS

Over 4 years at a Level I trauma center, 4,738 patients were observed for 23 hours. Of these patients, 630 were converted to full admission and were reviewed. All medical records were reviewed for reason for observation, reason for conversion to full admission, and presence of missed injury.

RESULTS

In the 4,738 patients observed, 35 had a missed injury identified. No clinical factors studied were associated with identifying a missed injury. Of the 35 patients that had a missed injury, 21 did not have clinically relevant injuries, whereas the 14 remaining patients did. All of the 14 required prolonged hospital admissions and 9 underwent invasive procedures.

CONCLUSION

Of over 4,700 observed trauma patients, less than 0.5% remained hospitalized for significant missed injuries. No factors were identified that predicted missed injuries. Twenty-three-hour observation for the purpose of identifying missed injuries after thorough emergency department evaluation may not be justified.

Evaluation of an emergency radiology quality assurance program at a level I trauma center: abdominal and pelvic CT studies

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use of a redundant system in improving quality of care in the trauma setting by examining a subset of our quality assurance program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five hundred thirty-one consecutive abdominal and pelvic CT reports obtained in patients with trauma at a level I trauma center from August 22, 1999, to August 21, 2000, were retrospectively reviewed. Each case was initially interpreted by a board-certified or board-eligible radiologist during evaluation in the emergency department and was subsequently reviewed by a subspecialty abdominal imaging radiologist as part of a quality assurance program. Nineteen cases were excluded because available information was incomplete, resulting in 512 cases in the current study. Cases with discordant interpretations were followed up to discern care change.

RESULTS

Of the 512 trauma cases, 153 (29.9%) showed discordant readings. Review of patient records demonstrated changes in patient care in 12 (7.8%) cases. Three (2.0%) cases were reviewed from the morbidity and mortality records of the Department of Trauma Surgery as a direct result of misinterpretations. Six (4%) cases involved additional diagnostic imaging for reevaluation; in four of these six cases the quality assurance reader's interpretation was confirmed, while in the other two, the initial interpretations were favored.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that discordant radiologic interpretations most often do not result in a change in patient care and outcome. The quality assurance program did, however, identify and lead to changes in care in a number of cases by providing clinically important additional findings.

Around-the-dock Attending Radiology Coverage is Essential to Avoid Mistakes in the Care of Trauma Patients

Financial constraints due to increasing operating cost and decreased reimbursement do not allow many hospitals to maintain coverage by attending radiologists around the clock (CARAC). Preliminary film readings by radiology trainees may be inaccurate. In trauma, decisions are made fast and are often based on these preliminary readings. To examine whether there are significant discrepancies between preliminary readings (PRs) and final readings (FRs) of CT scans of trauma patients we prospectively recorded PRs (done immediately by radiology residents) and FRs (done the following working day by radiology attendings) over a period of 6 months for trauma CT scans done between 5 pm and 7 am on weekdays or weekends. A discrepancy was classified as significant if a change in management was instituted after FR. In 42 of 383 (11%) trauma patients there was a discrepancy between PR and FR. Patients with discrepancies had a higher Injury Severity Score, higher incidence of penetrating trauma, longer hospital stay, higher hospital charges, and higher mortality than patients without any discrepancy. Most of the discrepancies were found on abdominal CT scans. The lower the level of radiology resident doing the PR the higher the likelihood of a discrepancy. In 20 patients (5%) a significant discrepancy was found. We conclude that the absence of CARAC results in inaccurate FRs risking optimal trauma patient care. The institutional savings realized by avoiding CARAC may be offset by the cost of additional care provided to patients who have delayed diagnosis and treatment due to the lack of it.

Resident interpretation of emergency CT scans in the evaluation of acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

Radiology resident interpretation of computed tomographic (CT) scans at academic institutions often guides management of cases of suspected acute appendicitis in the emergency department. The purpose of this study was to compare resident and faculty interpretation of CT scans obtained for acute appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From December 16, 1999, to July 13, 2000, CT was performed in 103 consecutive patients between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM who were suspected of having acute appendicitis. The authors compared the residents' preliminary written interpretations with both the final reports written by the faculty and the surgical findings. The faculty interpreting the CT scans were aware of resident interpretations but were not aware that a study was being conducted.

RESULTS

The final faculty interpretation and the preliminary resident interpretation were identical in 96 of the 103 patients (93%; 95% confidence interval: 87.8%, 97.2%). In only one patient was a scan originally interpreted as negative interpreted as positive by the faculty member. Clinically, the patient did not have acute appendicitis, and surgery was not perforrmed.

CONCLUSION

In the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, image interpretations made by adequately trained radiology residents can be expected to closely match those of the radiology faculty, and the practice of after-hours interpretation of such studies by radiology residents is safe.