Diagnostic Errors in Cerebrovascular Pathology: Retrospective Analysis of a Neuroradiology Database at a Large Tertiary Academic Medical Center

Shift Volume Directly Impacts Neuroradiology Error Rate at a Large Academic Medical Center: The Case for Volume Limits

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Unlike in Europe and Japan, guidelines or recommendations from specialized radiological societies on workflow management and adaptive intervention to reduce error rates are currently lacking in the United States. This study of neuroradiologic reads at a large US academic medical center, which may hopefully contribute to this discussion, found a direct relationship between error rate and shift volume.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CT and MR imaging reports from our institution's Neuroradiology Quality Assurance database (years 2014-2020) were searched for attending physician errors. Data were collected on shift volume specific error rates per 1000 interpreted studies and RADPEER scores. Optimal cutoff points for 2, 3 and 4 groups of shift volumes were computed along with subgroups' error rates.

RESULTS

A total of 643 errors were found, 91.7% of which were clinically significant (RADPEER 2b, 3b). The overall error rate (errors/1000 examinations) was 2.36. The best single shift volume cutoff point generated 2 groups: ≤ 26 studies (error rate 1.59) and > 26 studies (2.58; OR: 1.63, P < .001). The best 2 shift volume cutoff points generated 3 shift volume groups: ≤ 19 (1.34), 20-28 (1.88; OR: 1.4, P = .1) and ≥ 29 (2.6; OR: 1.94, P < .001). The best 3 shift volume cutoff points generated 4 groups: ≤ 24 (1.59), 25-66 (2.44; OR: 1.54, P < .001), 67-90 (3.03; OR: 1.91, P < .001), and ≥ 91 (2.07; OR: 1.30, P = .25). The group with shift volume ≥ 91 had a limited sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower shift volumes yielded significantly lower error rates. The lowest error rates were observed with shift volumes that were limited to 19-26 studies. Error rates at shift volumes between 67-90 studies were 226% higher, compared with the error rate at shift volumes of ≤ 19 studies.

Factors Associated With Neuroradiologic Diagnostic Errors at a Large Tertiary-Care Academic Medical Center: A Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND. Numerous studies have explored factors associated with diagnostic errors in neuroradiology; however, large-scale multivariable analyses are lacking. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate associations of interpretation time, shift volume, care setting, day of week, and trainee participation with diagnostic errors by neuroradiologists at a large academic medical center. METHODS. This retrospective case-control study using a large tertiary-care academic medical center's neuroradiology quality assurance database evaluated CT and MRI examinations for which neuroradiologists had assigned RADPEER scores. The database was searched from January 2014 through March 2020 for examinations without (RADPEER score of 1) or with (RADPEER scores of 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, or 4) diagnostic error. For each examination with error, two examinations without error were randomly selected (unless only one examination could be identified) and matched by interpreting radiologist and examination type to form case and control groups. Marginal mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to assess associations of diagnostic error with interpretation time (number of minutes since the immediately preceding report's completion), shift volume (number of examinations interpreted during the shift), emergency/inpatient setting, weekend interpretation, and trainee participation in interpretation. RESULTS. The case group included 564 examinations in 564 patients (mean age, 50.0 ± 25.0 [SD] years; 309 men, 255 women); the control group included 1019 examinations in 1019 patients (mean age, 52.5 ± 23.2 years; 540 men, 479 women). In the case versus control group, mean interpretation time was 16.3 ± 17.2 [SD] minutes versus 14.8 ± 16.7 minutes; mean shift volume was 50.0 ± 22.1 [SD] examinations versus 45.4 ± 22.9 examinations. In univariable models, diagnostic error was associated with shift volume (OR = 1.22, p < .001) and weekend interpretation (OR = 1.60, p < .001) but not interpretation time, emergency/inpatient setting, or trainee participation (p > .05). However, in multivariable models, diagnostic error was independently associated with interpretation time (OR = 1.18, p = .003), shift volume (OR = 1.27, p < .001), and weekend interpretation (OR = 1.69, p = .02). In subanalysis, diagnostic error showed independent associations on weekdays with interpretation time (OR = 1.18, p = .003) and shift volume (OR = 1.27, p < .001); such associations were not observed on weekends (interpretation time: p = .62; shift volume: p = .58). CONCLUSION. Diagnostic errors in neuroradiology were associated with longer interpretation times, higher shift volumes, and weekend interpretation. CLINICAL IMPACT. These findings should be considered when designing work-flow-related interventions seeking to reduce neuroradiology interpretation errors.

Impact of Shift Volume on Neuroradiology Diagnostic Errors at a Large Tertiary Academic Center

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Medical errors can result in significant morbidity and mortality. The goal of our study is to evaluate correlation between shift volume and errors made by attending neuroradiologists at an academic medical center, using a large data set.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CT and MRI reports from our Neuroradiology Quality Assurance database (years 2014 - 2020) were searched for attending physician errors. Data were collected on shift volume, category of missed findings, error type, interpretation setting, exam type, clinical significance.

RESULTS

654 reports contained diagnostic error. There was a significant difference between mean volume of interpreted studies on shifts when an error was made compared with shifts in which no error was documented (46.58 (SD=22.37) vs 34.09 (SD=18.60), p<0.00001); and between shifts when perceptual error was made compared with shifts when interpretive errors were made (49.50 (SD=21.9) vs 43.26 (SD=21.75), p=0.0094). 59.6% of errors occurred in the emergency/inpatient setting, 84% were perceptual and 91.1% clinically significant. Categorical distribution of errors was: vascular 25.8%, brain 23.4%, skull base 13.8%, spine 12.4%, head/neck 11.3%, fractures 10.2%, other 3.1%. Errors were detected most often on brain MRI (25.4%), head CT (18.7%), head/neck CTA (13.8%), spine MRI (13.7%).

CONCLUSION

Errors were associated with higher volume shifts, were primarily perceptual and clinically significant. We need National guidelines establishing a range of what is a safe number of interpreted cross-sectional studies per day.

A Deep Learning Approach for Automated Bone Removal from Computed Tomography Angiography of the Brain

Advanced visualization techniques such as maximum intensity projection (MIP) and volume rendering (VR) are useful for evaluating neurovascular anatomy on CT angiography (CTA) of the brain; however, interference from surrounding osseous anatomy is common. Existing methods for removing bone from CTA images are limited in scope and/or accuracy, particularly at the skull base. We present a new brain CTA bone removal tool, which addresses many of these limitations. A deep convolutional neural network was designed and trained for bone removal using 72 brain CTAs. The model was tested on 15 CTAs from the same data source and 17 CTAs from an independent external dataset. Bone removal accuracy was assessed quantitatively, by comparing automated segmentation results to manual segmentations, and qualitatively by evaluating VR visualization of the carotid siphons compared to an existing method for automated bone removal. Average Dice overlap between automated and manual segmentations from the internal and external test datasets were 0.986 and 0.979 respectively. This was superior compared to a publicly available noncontrast head CT bone removal algorithm which had a Dice overlap of 0.947 (internal dataset) and 0.938 (external dataset). Our algorithm yielded better VR visualization of the carotid siphons than the publicly available bone removal tool in 14 out of 15 CTAs (93%, chi-square statistic of 22.5, p-value of < 0.00001) from the internal test dataset and 15 out of 17 CTAs (88%, chi-square statistic of 23.1, p-value of < 0.00001) from the external test dataset. Bone removal allowed subjectively superior MIP and VR visualization of vascular anatomy/pathology. The proposed brain CTA bone removal algorithm is rapid, accurate, and allows superior visualization of vascular anatomy and pathology compared to other available techniques and was validated on an independent external dataset.