Comparing Accuracy of Night Radiology Interpretations for Pediatric Trauma: Radiology Residents Versus Attending Teleradiologists.

Alice M. Martino, Eric O. Yeates, A. Grigorian, J. Chinn, Hayley Young, Jessica Colin Escobar, Justin Glavis-Bloom, Arash Anavim, Vahid Yaghmai, Ninh T Nguyen, M. Dolich, S. Schubl, Laura F. Goodman, Yigit Guner, J. Nahmias
{"title":"Comparing Accuracy of Night Radiology Interpretations for Pediatric Trauma: Radiology Residents Versus Attending Teleradiologists.","authors":"Alice M. Martino, Eric O. Yeates, A. Grigorian, J. Chinn, Hayley Young, Jessica Colin Escobar, Justin Glavis-Bloom, Arash Anavim, Vahid Yaghmai, Ninh T Nguyen, M. Dolich, S. Schubl, Laura F. Goodman, Yigit Guner, J. Nahmias","doi":"10.1177/00031348241248794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Overnight radiology coverage for pediatric trauma patients (PTPs) is addressed with a combination of on-call radiology residents (RRs) and/or attending teleradiologists (ATs); however, the accuracy of these two groups has not been investigated for PTPs. We aimed to compare the accuracy of RRs vs AT interpretations of computed tomography (CT) scans for PTPs. Methods: Pediatric trauma patients (<18 years old) at a single level-I adult/level-II pediatric trauma center were studied in a retrospective analysis (3/2019-5/2020). Computed tomography scans interpreted by both RRs and ATs were included. Radiology residents were compared to ATs for time to interpretation (TTI) and accuracy compared to faculty attending radiologist interpretation, using the validated RADPEER scoring system. Additionally, RR and AT accuracies were compared to a previously studied adult cohort during the same time-period. Results: 42 PTPs (270 interpretations) and 1053 adults (8226 interpretations) were included. Radiology residents had similar rates of discrepancy (13.3% vs 13.3%), major discrepancy (4.4% vs 4.4%), missed findings (9.6% vs 12.6%), and overcalls (3.7% vs .7%) vs ATs (all P > .05). Mean TTI was shorter for RRs (55.9 vs 90.4 minutes, P < .001). Radiology residents had a higher discrepancy rate for PTPs (13.3% vs 7.5%, P = .01) than adults. Attending teleradiologists had a similar discrepancy rate for PTPs and adults (13.3% vs 8.9%, P = .07). Discussion: When interpreting PTP CT imaging, RRs had similar discrepancy rates but faster TTI than ATs. Radiology residents had a higher discrepancy rate for PTP CTs than RR interpretation of adult patients, indicating both RRs and ATs need more focused training in the interpretation of PTP studies.","PeriodicalId":325363,"journal":{"name":"The American Surgeon","volume":"5 4","pages":"31348241248794"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241248794","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Overnight radiology coverage for pediatric trauma patients (PTPs) is addressed with a combination of on-call radiology residents (RRs) and/or attending teleradiologists (ATs); however, the accuracy of these two groups has not been investigated for PTPs. We aimed to compare the accuracy of RRs vs AT interpretations of computed tomography (CT) scans for PTPs. Methods: Pediatric trauma patients (<18 years old) at a single level-I adult/level-II pediatric trauma center were studied in a retrospective analysis (3/2019-5/2020). Computed tomography scans interpreted by both RRs and ATs were included. Radiology residents were compared to ATs for time to interpretation (TTI) and accuracy compared to faculty attending radiologist interpretation, using the validated RADPEER scoring system. Additionally, RR and AT accuracies were compared to a previously studied adult cohort during the same time-period. Results: 42 PTPs (270 interpretations) and 1053 adults (8226 interpretations) were included. Radiology residents had similar rates of discrepancy (13.3% vs 13.3%), major discrepancy (4.4% vs 4.4%), missed findings (9.6% vs 12.6%), and overcalls (3.7% vs .7%) vs ATs (all P > .05). Mean TTI was shorter for RRs (55.9 vs 90.4 minutes, P < .001). Radiology residents had a higher discrepancy rate for PTPs (13.3% vs 7.5%, P = .01) than adults. Attending teleradiologists had a similar discrepancy rate for PTPs and adults (13.3% vs 8.9%, P = .07). Discussion: When interpreting PTP CT imaging, RRs had similar discrepancy rates but faster TTI than ATs. Radiology residents had a higher discrepancy rate for PTP CTs than RR interpretation of adult patients, indicating both RRs and ATs need more focused training in the interpretation of PTP studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较小儿创伤夜间放射诊断的准确性:放射科住院医师与远程放射科主治医师的对比。
背景:儿科创伤患者(PTPs)的通宵放射科覆盖是由值班放射科住院医师(RRs)和/或主治远程放射医师(ATs)共同负责的;但是,这两组人员对 PTPs 的准确性尚未进行过调查。我们的目的是比较放射科住院医师和远程放射医师对 PTP 的计算机断层扫描 (CT) 解释的准确性。方法:小儿创伤患者 ( .05)。RR的平均TTI较短(55.9分钟 vs 90.4分钟,P < .001)。放射科住院医生对 PTP 的差异率(13.3% 对 7.5%,P = .01)高于成人。远程放射科主治医师对 PTP 和成人的差异率相似(13.3% vs 8.9%,P = .07)。讨论:在解释 PTP CT 成像时,RR 的差异率相似,但 TTI 比 AT 快。放射科住院医师对成人患者的 PTP CT 解读差异率高于 RR,这表明 RR 和 AT 都需要在 PTP 研究解读方面接受更有针对性的培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bile Duct Injuries During Urgent Cholecystectomy at a Safety Net Teaching Hospital: Attending Experience and Time of Day May Matter. From Bytes to Best Practices: Tracing ChatGPT-3.5's Evolution and Alignment With the National Comprehensive Cancer Network® Guidelines in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Management. The USCENTCOM Walking Blood Bank Performance Benchmark and Anticipated Benefit of Universal Low Titer Type O Screening. Contemporary Outcomes and Patterns of Injury Associated With Parachuting Accidents. To Drain or Not: Drainage Procedures Remain a Central Tenet of Management of Infected Collections in Acute Pancreatitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1