Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze report addenda to assess the self-reported error rate in radiologic study interpretation, the types of errors that occur, and the distribution of error by image modality.
Materials And Methods: Addenda to all diagnostic radiology reports were compiled over a 1-year period (n = 5568). The overall error rate was based on addenda frequency relative to the total number of studies performed. Addenda written over the most recent 2-month interval (n = 851) were classified into five major categories of predominant error type: underreading, overreading, poor communication, insufficient history, and poor technique. Each category was further divided into multiple subtypes.
Results: Diagnostic studies at our hospital had an error rate of 0.8%. Errors of poor communication occurred most frequently (44%), followed by underreading (7%), insufficient history (21%), overreading (8%), and poor technique (1%). Analyzed by imaging modality, most errors occurred in PET (19.45 per 1000 studies), followed by MRI (13.86 per 1000 studies) and CT (12.45 per 1000 studies).
Conclusion: Through the use of report addenda to calculate error, discrepancy between individual radiologists is removed in a reproducible and widely applicable way. This approach to error typology eliminates sample bias and in a departure from previous analyses of difficult cases shows that errors of communication are most frequent, representing a clear area for targeted improvement.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14891 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!