AJR InPractice
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carney, E.
Right arrow Articles by Nosher, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Carney, E.
Right arrow Articles by Nosher, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
AJR 2003; 181:367-373
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Preliminary Interpretations of After-Hours CT and Sonography by Radiology Residents Versus Final Interpretations by Body Imaging Radiologists at a Level 1 Trauma Center

Erin Carney1, Jeffrey Kempf, Victor DeCarvalho, Anthony Yudd and John Nosher

1 All authors: Department of Radiology, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, 1 Robert Wood Johnson Pl., MEB 4th Fl., New Brunswick, NJ 08901.

OBJECTIVE. At many academic institutions, preliminary interpretations of CT scans and sonograms obtained after regular hours of operation are performed by radiology residents, with attending radiologists reviewing the interpretations the next morning. We sought to determine the rate of discrepancy between residents' interpretations of imaging studies and the final interpretations performed by an attending body imaging radiologist as well as any resulting clinical consequences stemming from the discrepancies. Therefore, we reviewed 928 CT and sonographic images that had been obtained after hours at a level 1 trauma center during a 6-month period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Any discrepancies between the preliminary and final interpretations were judged as either major (i.e., necessitating an urgent change in treatment) or minor errors. We conducted patient follow-up via a retrospective review of the medical charts to determine whether any of the discrepancies led to additional imaging, an increase in patient morbidity, an extension of a hospital stay, or a change in treatment.

RESULTS. The overall discrepancy rate in interpretations rendered by the residents and those performed by the attending radiologist was 3.8%, with most of these discrepancies (86%) judged to be minor. If we combined the data for body CT scans and sonograms, the rate of minor discrepancies was 3.2%, and the rate of major discrepancies was 0.5%. If we considered only body CT data in the evaluation, the overall discrepancy rate increased to 6.4%, with a 5.4% rate of minor discrepancies and a 1.0% rate of major discrepancies.

CONCLUSION. Our evaluation of discrepancy rates was unusual in that we included interpretations of sonograms, on which residents and the attending radiologist had a higher rate of agreement (99.5%). Because of the high agreement in the interpretation of sonograms, the overall discrepancy rate was 3.8%. However, if only body CT scan interpretations were evaluated, our results were closer to the rates reported in previously published studies. Major discrepancies led to a change in patient treatment but did not lead to any increase in patient morbidity or to any quantifiable increase in the length of the hospital stay.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
C. G. Filippi, B. Schneider, H. N. Burbank, G. F. Alsofrom, G. Linnell, and B. Ratkovits
Discrepancy Rates of Radiology Resident Interpretations of On-Call Neuroradiology MR Imaging Studies
Radiology, December 1, 2008; 249(3): 972 - 979.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Neuroradiol.Home page
W.M. Strub, J.L. Leach, T. Tomsick, and A. Vagal
Overnight Preliminary Head CT Interpretations Provided by Residents: Locations of Misidentified Intracranial Hemorrhage
AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., October 1, 2007; 28(9): 1679 - 1682.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
R. B. Ruchman, J. Jaeger, E. F. Wiggins III, S. Seinfeld, V. Thakral, S. Bolla, and S. Wallach
Preliminary Radiology Resident Interpretations Versus Final Attending Radiologist Interpretations and the Impact on Patient Care in a Community Hospital
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3): 523 - 526.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.