Improving the quality and safety of radiology reporting: A prospective audit of discrepancies among consultant radiologists

iRadiology Pub Date : 2023-03-27 DOI:10.1002/ird3.9
Jenny Connor, Yitka Graham, Ken McGarry, Catherine Hayes, Pallavi Mehrotra, Julie Cox
{"title":"Improving the quality and safety of radiology reporting: A prospective audit of discrepancies among consultant radiologists","authors":"Jenny Connor,&nbsp;Yitka Graham,&nbsp;Ken McGarry,&nbsp;Catherine Hayes,&nbsp;Pallavi Mehrotra,&nbsp;Julie Cox","doi":"10.1002/ird3.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To examine discrepancy rates over multiple annual cycles in reporting by consultant radiologists for the interpretation of acute Computerized Tomography (CT) examinations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A prospective audit with peer review and second reading of acute CT scans was implemented in one radiology department in the UK. A longitudinal audit over 5 years was performed to determine the discrepancy rate of acute and emergency CT scans conducted on weekends. The examinations comprised CT head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis, CT Kidneys, Ureters, and Bladder (CT KUB), and CT angiography scans. Discrepancies were scored as no discrepancy (zero), minor discrepancy (one), moderate discrepancy (two), or significant discrepancy (three). Seventeen consultants took part in the audit as primary reporters and second readers. All consultants were on-call radiologists, and the allocation of cases was randomized depending on the on-call rota. Results were reported annually to one consultant radiologist.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A significant discrepancy rate of 1.2% (<i>p</i> = 0.026) was found for consultant radiologists, interpreting acute CT examinations based on 2951 s read CT scans.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to establish significant discrepancy rates among consultant radiologists, interpreting acute CT examinations over time.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":73508,"journal":{"name":"iRadiology","volume":"1 1","pages":"103-108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ird3.9","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"iRadiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird3.9","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

Objectives

To examine discrepancy rates over multiple annual cycles in reporting by consultant radiologists for the interpretation of acute Computerized Tomography (CT) examinations.

Methods

A prospective audit with peer review and second reading of acute CT scans was implemented in one radiology department in the UK. A longitudinal audit over 5 years was performed to determine the discrepancy rate of acute and emergency CT scans conducted on weekends. The examinations comprised CT head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis, CT Kidneys, Ureters, and Bladder (CT KUB), and CT angiography scans. Discrepancies were scored as no discrepancy (zero), minor discrepancy (one), moderate discrepancy (two), or significant discrepancy (three). Seventeen consultants took part in the audit as primary reporters and second readers. All consultants were on-call radiologists, and the allocation of cases was randomized depending on the on-call rota. Results were reported annually to one consultant radiologist.

Results

A significant discrepancy rate of 1.2% (p = 0.026) was found for consultant radiologists, interpreting acute CT examinations based on 2951 s read CT scans.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to establish significant discrepancy rates among consultant radiologists, interpreting acute CT examinations over time.

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
提高放射学报告的质量和安全性:对放射科医生顾问之间差异的前瞻性审计
目的检查顾问放射科医生在解释急性计算机断层扫描(CT)检查时报告的多个年度周期的差异率。方法在英国某放射科进行前瞻性审计,对急性CT扫描进行同行评审和二读。对周末进行的急性CT扫描和急诊CT扫描进行为期5年的纵向审计,以确定差异率。检查包括头部、胸部、腹部和骨盆的CT、肾脏、输尿管和膀胱的CT(KUB)以及CT血管造影术扫描。差异分为无差异(零)、轻微差异(一)、中度差异(两)或显著差异(三)。17名顾问作为主要记者和第二读者参加了审计。所有顾问都是随叫随到的放射科医生,病例的分配根据随叫随来的轮调进行随机分配。每年向一名放射科医生顾问报告结果。结果放射科医生顾问根据2951s的CT扫描结果对急性CT检查进行解释,发现差异率为1.2%(p=0.026)。结论据我们所知,这是第一项在放射科医生顾问中确定显著差异率的研究,解释了一段时间以来的急性CT检查。
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
Issue Information Exploring the Capability of Spectral Detector Computed Tomography to Identify Zinc and Magnesium in the Prostate Gland: A Proof-of-Concept Study Breakthroughs in the Application of Instruments and Equipment in Medical Molecular Imaging to Neuropsychiatric Disorders Central Nervous System Involvement as the Initial Manifestation of Transthyretin Amyloidosis: A Case Report and Literature Review The Expanding Role of Instruments and Equipment in Medical Imaging
×
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:604180095
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