Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회지)

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of the Rate of Discrepancy between Preliminary Reports by Radiology Residents and Final Reports by Certified Radiologists for Emergency Radiology: Studies in a University Hospital

대학병원 응급 영상검사에서 영상의학과 전공의 가판독과 전문의 최종 판독 간의 불일치 발생률 분석

  • Younbeom Jeong (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Cheong-Il Shin (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Hwan Jun Jae (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Jung Hoon Kim (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Jin Wook Chung (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • 정연범 (서울대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 신청일 (서울대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 제환준 (서울대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 김정훈 (서울대학교병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 정진욱 (서울대학교병원 영상의학과)
  • Received : 2020.11.13
  • Accepted : 2021.01.06
  • Published : 2021.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose In the adult emergency department of a university hospital, we investigated the frequency of major discrepancies between the preliminary reports by radiology residents and the final reports by certified radiologists. Materials and Methods Based on CT and MRI scans obtained between December 2016 and November 2019, we selected cases with diagnoses or treatment plans that could be changed due to discrepancies between preliminary and final reports and classified them by the type of discrepancy. We also examined the distributions of the major discrepancies and stratified them by residents' working time zone, experience, and subspecialty. Results Based on the 72137 preliminary reports evaluated, 1348 tests (1.9%) showed major discrepancies. Most of the major discrepancies were false negatives (72.0%), followed by misdiagnosis (26.3%) and false positives (1.7%). Acute findings (87.2%) were more common than non-acute findings (12.8%). The major discrepancy rate increased toward the second half of the 24-hour shift, with the highest rate of 2.9% occurring between 2 am and 4 am. The major discrepancy rate did not vary with experience, and it varied from 0.6% to 4.5% for each subspecialty. Conclusion The major discrepancy rate was less than 2%, and it increased with longer working hours during a 24-hour shift.

목적 대학병원 성인응급실에서 영상의학과 전공의 가판독과 전문의 최종 판독 간에 불일치가 발생한 빈도를 조사하고, 이 발생률에 영향을 미칠 수 있는 요인을 살펴보았다. 대상과 방법 2016년 12월부터 2019년 11월까지 성인응급실에서 촬영된 전산화단층촬영과 자기공명영상 검사 중, 전공의 가판독과 전문의 최종 판독 간에 불일치로 인해 환자의 진단이나 치료 계획이 변경될 수 있는 경우를 중대한 불일치로 정의하고, 이를 유형별로 분류하였다. 이후 전공의 근무 시간대, 응급실 근무 경력, 세부 분야별로 중대한 불일치 발생률의 분포를 살펴보았다. 결과 총 72137건의 가판독 중 중대한 불일치를 보인 검사는 총 1348건(1.9%) 이었다. 중대한 불일치의 유형으로는 위음성(72.0%)이 가장 많았고, 오판(26.3%), 위양성(1.7%) 순이었다. 또한 급성 소견의 중대한 불일치(87.2%)가 비급성 소견의 중대한 불일치(12.8%)보다 많았다. 중대한 불일치 발생률은 24시간 교대 근무 후반부로 갈수록 증가하였으며, 새벽 2시부터 4시 사이가 2.9%로 가장 높았다. 전공의의 응급실 근무 경력에 따른 발생률 차이는 없었고, 세부 분야별 발생률은 0.6%-4.5%로 다양했다. 결론 가판독과 최종 판독 간에 중대한 불일치 발생률은 2% 미만이었고, 24시간 교대 근무 후반으로 갈수록 증가하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for radiologist coverage of imaging performed in hospital emergency departments. Available at. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/HospER.pdf. Published 2018. Accessed Aug 21, 2020 
  2. Jin KN, Jae HJ, Shin CI, Chai JW, Chun SR, Shin SD, et al. Overnight preliminary interpretations of CT and MR images by radiology residents in ER: how accurate are they? J Korean Soc Emerg Med 2008;19:205-210 
  3. American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. Available at. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/CommunicationDiag.pdf. Published 2014. Accessed Aug 21, 2020 
  4. Gergenti L, Olympia RP. Etiology and disposition associated with radiology discrepancies on emergency department patients. Am J Emerg Med 2019;37:2015-2019  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.02.027
  5. Vaattovaara E, Nikki M, Nevalainen M, Ilmarinen M, Tervonen O. Discrepancies in interpretation of night-time emergency computed tomography scans by radiology residents. Acta Radiol Open 2018;7:2058460118807234 
  6. Bruno MA, Duncan JR, Bierhals AJ, Tappouni R. Overnight resident versus 24-hour attending radiologist coverage in academic medical centers. Radiology 2018;289:809-813  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180690
  7. Weinberg BD, Richter MD, Champine JG, Morriss MC, Browning T. Radiology resident preliminary reporting in an independent call environment: multiyear assessment of volume, timeliness, and accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol 2015;12:95-100  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2014.08.005
  8. Issa G, Taslakian B, Itani M, Hitti E, Batley N, Saliba M, et al. The discrepancy rate between preliminary and official reports of emergency radiology studies: a performance indicator and quality improvement method. Acta Radiol 2015;56:598-604  https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185114532922
  9. Tomich J, Retrouvey M, Shaves S. Emergency imaging discrepancy rates at a level 1 trauma center: identifying the most common on-call resident "misses". Emerg Radiol 2013;20:499-505  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-013-1146-4
  10. Ruchman RB, Jaeger J, Wiggins EF 3rd, Seinfeld S, Thakral V, Bolla S, et al. Preliminary radiology resident interpretations versus final attending radiologist interpretations and the impact on patient care in a community hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:523-526  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2307
  11. Branstetter BF 4th, Morgan MB, Nesbit CE, Phillips JA, Lionetti DM, Chang PJ, et al. Preliminary reports in the emergency department: is a subspecialist radiologist more accurate than a radiology resident? Acad Radiol 2007;14:201-206  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2006.11.001
  12. Carney E, Kempf J, DeCarvalho V, Yudd A, Nosher J. Preliminary interpretations of after-hours CT and sonography by radiology residents versus final interpretations by body imaging radiologists at a level 1 trauma center. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:367-373  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.2.1810367
  13. Gilbert JW, Johnson KM, Larkin GL, Moore CL. Atraumatic headache in US emergency departments: recent trends in CT/MRI utilisation and factors associated with severe intracranial pathology. Emerg Med J 2012;29:576-581  https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2011-200088
  14. Korley FK, Pham JC, Kirsch TD. Use of advanced radiology during visits to US emergency departments for injury-related conditions, 1998-2007. JAMA 2010;304:1465-1471  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1408
  15. Pines JM. Trends in the rates of radiography use and important diagnoses in emergency department patients with abdominal pain. Med Care 2009;47:782-786  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819748e9
  16. Bruno MA. 256 shades of gray: uncertainty and diagnostic error in radiology. Diagnosis (Berl) 2017;4:149-157  https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2017-0006
  17. Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH. Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. Radiographics 2015;35:1668-1676  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015150023
  18. Kim YW, Mansfield LT. Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:465-470  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11493
  19. Garland LH. On the scientific evaluation of diagnostic procedures. Radiology 1949;52:309-328  https://doi.org/10.1148/52.3.309
  20. Erly WK, Berger WG, Krupinski E, Seeger JF, Guisto JA. Radiology resident evaluation of head CT scan orders in the emergency department. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:103-107