Emergency Computed Tomography: What is Missed at First Reading?

Night Radiology Coverage for Trauma: Residents, Teleradiology, or Both?

BACKGROUND

Overnight radiology coverage for trauma patients is often addressed with a combination of on-call radiology residents (RR) and a teleradiology service; however, the accuracy of these 2 readers has not been studied for trauma. We aimed to compare the accuracy of RR versus teleradiologist interpretations of CT scans for trauma patients.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective analysis (March 2019 through May 2020) of trauma patients presenting to a single American College of Surgeons Level I trauma center was performed. Patients whose CT scans were performed between 10 pm to 8 am were included, because their scans were interpreted by both a RR and teleradiologist. Interpretations were compared with the final attending faculty radiologist's interpretation and graded for accuracy based on the RADPEER scoring system. Discrepancies were characterized as traumatic injury or incidental findings and missed findings or overcalls. Turnaround time was also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 1,053 patients and 8,226 interpretations were included. Compared with teleradiologists, RR had a lower discrepancy (7.7% vs 9.0%, p = 0.026) and major discrepancy rate (3.8% vs 5.2%, p = 0.003). Among major discrepancies, RR had a lower rate of traumatic injury discrepancies (3.2% vs 4.4%, p = 0.004) and missed findings (3.4% vs 5.1%, p < 0.001), but a higher rate of overcalls (0.5% vs 0.1%, p < 0.001) compared with teleradiologists. The mean turnaround time was shorter for RR (51.3 vs 78.8 minutes, p < 0.001). The combination of both RR and teleradiologist interpretations had a lower overall discrepancy rate than RR (5.0% vs 7.7%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified lower discrepancy rates and a faster turnaround time by RR compared with teleradiologists for trauma CT studies. The combination of both interpreters had an even lower discrepancy rate, suggesting this combination is optimal when an in-house attending radiologist is not available.

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.

Emergency Computed Tomography: How Misinterpretations Vary According to the Periods of the Nightshift?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy of initial computed tomography (CT) interpretations made by radiology residents during nightshifts in the emergency department.

METHODS

Preliminary CT reports performed by radiology residents during 120 consecutive nightshifts (08:30 pm to 08:30 am) were reviewed, attendings' final interpretation being the reference standard. Nightshifts were divided into four consecutive periods of 3 hours. Major misinterpretations were related to potentially life-threatening conditions if not treated immediately after CT. The rate of misinterpretations was calculated for all CT examinations, separately for nightshift's periods and for residents' training years.

RESULTS

Misinterpretations were recorded in 155 (7.4%) of 2102 CT examinations, 0.6% (13/2102) were major. There were 2.2% (4/186) major misinterpretations that occurred during the last period of the nightshift versus 0.4% (9/1916) during the first periods of the night (P < 0.05). Of all misinterpretations, 8.5% (130/1526) were made by third- and fourth-year residents and 4.3% (25/576) by fifth-year residents (P < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Major misinterpretations occur at the end of the nightshift, which may be explained by the fatigue effect. The rate of misinterpretations is lower among fifth-year residents, which may be related to their prior experience in reading emergency cases.

Discrepancies in interpretation of night-time emergency computed tomography scans by radiology residents

Background

In many emergency radiology units, most of the night-time work is performed by radiology residents. Residents’ preliminary reports are typically reviewed by an attending radiologist. Accordingly, it is known that discrepancies in these preliminary reports exist.

Purpose

To evaluate the quality of night-time computed tomography (CT) interpretations made by radiology residents in the emergency department.

Material and Methods

Retrospectively, 1463 initial night-time CT interpretations given by a radiology resident were compared to the subspecialist’s re-interpretation given the following weekday. All discrepancies were recorded and classified into different groups regarding their possible adverse effect for the emergency treatment. The rate of discrepancies was compared between more and less experienced residents and between different anatomical regions.

Results

The overall rate of misinterpretations was low. In 2.3% (33/1463) of all night-time CT interpretations, an important and clinically relevant diagnosis was missed. No fatalities occurred due to CT misinterpretations during the study. The total rate of discrepancies including clinically irrelevant findings such as anatomical variations was 12.2% (179/1463). Less experienced residents were more likely to miss the correct diagnosis than more experienced residents (18.3% vs. 10.9%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.82, P = 0.001). Discrepancies were more common in body CT interpretations than in neurological CTs (18.1% vs. 9.1%, OR = 2.30, P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The rate of clinically important misinterpretations in CT examinations by radiology residents was found to be low. Experience helps in lowering the rate of misinterpretations.

Surgical residents' interpretation of diagnostic radiologic imaging in the traumatically injured patient

BACKGROUND

Senior surgical residents are of paramount importance in directing further therapeutic modalities based on their interpretation of critical diagnostic imaging. We propose that senior surgical residents are proficient with interpreting radiologic imaging studies in the trauma patient.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was performed comparing surgery resident interpretations of computed tomography (CT) scans of the head, maxillofacial bones, spine (cervical, thoracic, lumbar), chest, abdomen, pelvis, and chest X-rays versus final radiologists' reports at a Level II trauma center from September 2014 to May 2015. A Cohen κ coefficient and a statistical analysis of variance testing were used to make multiple comparisons of the data.

RESULTS

There were 951 trauma alerts activated in the period stated. Of these, 860 met our age inclusion criteria (age, > 18 years). There were 204 images included with an overall accuracy of 81.3%. Residents were more than 70% successful interpreting seven of nine categories. They achieved an accuracy of 84.6%, 62.5%, and 75% in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine categories, respectively. Forty-one of 50 CT scans of the head were interpreted correctly. Maxillofacial CT scans proved to be the weakest category, with only 50% read accurately. In regard to CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis, 80% proficiency was achieved. Abdominal x-rays were read correctly in all instances and chest x-rays 83.3%. On κ analysis, there was an overall moderate agreement between the two groups with K = 0.449, and an overall p less than 0.0005 (Table 1). A perfect agreement existed with abdominal x-rays.

CONCLUSION

Senior surgical residents are capable of interpreting critical images obtained in the trauma setting. When discordance existed with attending radiologists' interpretation, it did not change the clinical outcome or result in any critically missed findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management study, Level IV.

Attending Radiologist Variability and Its Effect on Radiology Resident Discrepancy Rates

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Discrepancy rates for interpretations produced in a call situation are one metric to evaluate residents during training. Current benchmarks, reported in previous studies, do not consider the effects of practice pattern variability among attending radiologists. This study aims to investigate the impact of attending variability on resident discrepancy rates to determine if the current benchmarks are an accurate measure of resident performance and, if necessary, update discrepancy benchmarks to accurately identify residents performing below expectations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All chest radiographs, musculoskeletal (MSK) radiographs, chest computed tomographies (CTs), abdomen and pelvis CTs, and head CTs interpreted by postgraduate year-3 residents in a call situation over 5 years were reviewed for the presence of a significant discrepancy and composite results compared to prior findings. Simulations of the expected discrepancy distribution for an "average resident" were then performed using Gibbs sampling, and this distribution was compared to the actual resident distribution.

RESULTS

A strong inverse correlation between resident volume and discrepancy rates was found. There was wide variability among attendings in both overread volume and propensity to issue a discrepancy, although there was no significant correlation. Simulations show that previous benchmarks match well for chest radiographs, abdomen and pelvis CTs, and head CTs but not for MSK radiographs and chest CTs. The simulations also demonstrate a large effect of attending practice patterns on resident discrepancy rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The large variability in attending practice patterns suggests direct comparison of residents using discrepancy rates is unlikely to reflect true performance. Current benchmarks for chest radiographs, abdomen and pelvis CTs, and head CTs are appropriate and correctly flag residents whose performance may benefit from additional attention, whereas those for MSK radiographs and chest CTs are likely too strict.