Communication errors in radiology – Pitfalls and how to avoid them

Health Systems Science - A Primer for Radiologists

Health systems science (HSS) is an educational framework designed to promote improved care through enhanced citizenship and the training of systems-fluent individuals trained in the science of health care delivery.  HSS education in residency builds upon foundations established during medical school, emphasizing practical skills development, and fostering a growth mindset among trainees.  The HSS framework organizes elements of system-based practice for radiology trainees, promoting practice-readiness for providing safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable and patient centered radiological care. This paper serves as a primer for radiologists to understand and apply the HSS framework. Additionally, we highlight radiology-specific curricular elements aligned with the HSS framework, and provide teaching resources both for classroom education and for resident self-study.

Analysis of Radiology Report Recommendation Characteristics and Rate of Recommended Action Performance

IMPORTANCE

Following up on recommendations from radiologic findings is important for patient care, but frequently there are failures to carry out these recommendations. The lack of reliable systems to characterize and track completion of actionable radiology report recommendations poses an important patient safety challenge.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize actionable radiology recommendations and, using this taxonomy, track and understand rates of loop closure for radiology recommendations in a primary care setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Radiology reports in a primary care clinic at a large academic center were redesigned to include actionable recommendations in a separate dedicated field. Manual review of all reports generated from imaging tests ordered between January 1 and December 31, 2018, by primary care physicians that contained actionable recommendations was performed. For this quality improvement study, a taxonomy system that conceptualized recommendations was developed based on 3 domains: (1) what is recommended (eg, repeat a test or perform a different test, specialty referral), (2) specified time frame in which to perform the recommended action, and (3) contingency language qualifying the recommendation. Using this framework, a 2-stage process was used to review patients' records to classify recommendations and determine loop closure rates and factors associated with failure to complete recommended actions. Data analysis was conducted from April to July 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Radiology recommendations, time frames, and contingencies. Rates of carrying out vs not closing the loop on these recommendations in the recommended time frame were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 598 radiology reports were identified with structured recommendations: 462 for additional or future radiologic studies and 196 for nonradiologic actions (119 specialty referrals, 47 invasive procedures, and 43 other actions). The overall rate of completed actions (loop closure) within the recommended time frame was 87.4%, with 31 open loop cases rated by quality expert reviewers to pose substantial clinical risks. Factors associated with successful loop closure included (1) absence of accompanying contingency language, (2) shorter recommended time frames, and (3) evidence of direct radiologist communication with the ordering primary care physicians. A clinically significant lack of loop closure was found in approximately 5% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that creating structured radiology reports featuring a dedicated recommendations field permits the development of taxonomy to classify such recommendations and determine whether they were carried out. The lack of loop closure suggests the need for more reliable systems.

Talking Points: Enhancing Communication Between Radiologists and Patients

Radiologists communicate along multiple pathways, using written, verbal, and non-verbal means. Radiology trainees must gain skills in all forms of communication, with attention to developing effective professional communication in all forms. This manuscript reviews evidence-based strategies for enhancing effective communication between radiologists and patients through direct communication, written means and enhanced reporting. We highlight patient-centered communication efforts, available evidence, and opportunities to engage learners and enhance training and simulation efforts that improve communication with patients at all levels of clinical care.

Informatics Solutions to Mitigate Legal Risk Associated With Communication Failures

Communication failures are a documented cause of malpractice litigation against radiologists. As imaging volumes have increased, and with them the number of findings requiring further workup, radiologists are increasingly expected to communicate with ordering clinicians. However, communication may be unsuccessful for a variety of reasons that expose radiologists to potential malpractice risk. Informatics solutions have the potential to improve communication and decrease this risk. We discuss human-powered, purely automated, and hybrid approaches to closing the communications loop. In addition, we describe the Patient Test Results Information Act (Pennsylvania Act 112) and its implications for closing the loop on noncritical actionable findings.

The awareness of radiologists for the presence of lateral lymph nodes in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a single-centre, retrospective cohort study

Objectives

Enlarged lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) are associated with increased (lateral) local recurrence rates. Size and anatomical location should therefore always be reported by radiologists and discussed during multidisciplinary meetings. The objective was to investigate how often LLNs are mentioned in MRI reports in a tertiary referral centre.

Methods

A single - centre, retrospective study of 202 patients treated for primary rectal cancer between 2012 and 2020, with at least a T2 tumour located within 12cm of the anorectal junction. The radiology reports were written by 30–40 consultant radiologists. MRI scans were independently re-assessed by an expert radiologist. The primary outcome was how often the presence or absence of LLNs was mentioned in the initial report.

Results

Primary MRI reports explicitly mentioned the presence or absence of LLNs in 89 (44%) cases. Of the 43 reports with present LLNs, only one (1%) reported on all features such as size, location or malignant features. Expert review revealed 17 LLNs which were ≥ 7 mm (short-axis); two of these were not mentioned in the original reports. In 14/43 (33%) cases, LLNs were discussed during the primary multidisciplinary meeting, while 17/43 (40%) restaging MRI reports failed to report on the previously visible LLN. Reporting LLNs increased significantly with higher N-stage (p = .010) and over time (p = .042).

Conclusions

Though improving with time, there is still limited consistency in reporting LLNs. Only 44% of primary MRI reports mentioned LLNs and relevant features of those LLNs were seldomly reported. Given the importance of this information for subsequent treatment; increased awareness, proper training and the use of templates are needed.

Key Points

• Comprehensive reporting of lateral lymph nodes in primary MRI reports was limited to less than 50%.

• Lateral lymph nodes are not always discussed during primary multidisciplinary meetings or mentioned in restaging reports.

• Improvements in the awareness and knowledge of lateral lymph nodes are needed to ensure adequate multidisciplinary treatment decisions.

Analysis of critical report notification from musculoskeletal radiology in a tertiary academic medical institution with a regional trauma center

Purpose

We aimed to analyze the prevalence, causes, and clinical settings of 4-year critical radiologic reports (CRRs) notified from the musculoskeletal section of the radiology department. Then, we investigated the communication outcomes.

Methods

This study was approved by our institutional review board. We retrospectively included 175 musculoskeletal CRRs from our database between January 2017 and December 2020. The CRRs were analyzed by two musculoskeletal radiologists, who categorized the CRRs by clinical setting (emergency department(ED) patient, outpatient, and inpatient), body part, type of image modality, reason for CRR, incidental lesion, and clinical outcome. The clinical outcome was retrieved from the electronic medical records.

Results

The 175 musculoskeletal CRRs accounted for 5.4% of the CRRs (n = 3217) available in the study period. Most CRRs (94.9%, 166/175) corresponded to the musculoskeletal system, while the remaining ones (5.1%, 9/175) corresponded to the non-musculoskeletal system. In addition, the spine, extremities, and thoracic cage accounted for 52.6%, 40.6%, and 1.7% of the musculoskeletal CRRs, respectively. Moreover, most patients presented to the ED (50.3%, 88/175), followed by inpatients (30.9%, 54/175), and outpatients (18.9%, 33/175). The CRR reasons included missed fracture (54.3%), suspected malignancy (16%), clinical emergency (10.3%), unexpected infection/inflammation (11.4%), and others (8%). Furthermore, 11 (6.3%) incidental lesions were not related to the primary imaging purpose. Referring clinicians actively acknowledged 80% of the CRRs. The loss to follow-up action was the highest in the ED patients (35.2%, 31/88; p < 0.001), being significantly higher than that in outpatients (6.1%, 2/33) and inpatients (3.7%, 2/54).

Conclusion

Missed fractures were the most common cause of musculoskeletal CRRs. ED showed prevalence in musculoskeletal CRRs and reflected the highest loss to follow-up action. ED physicians should pay more attention to CRRs to enhance patient care.

Orthopaedic surgeons do not consult radiology reports. Fact or fiction?

PURPOSE

To find out how orthopaedic surgeons handle radiological reports and to identify ways to improve musculoskeletal radiology service and interdisciplinary communication.

METHOD

An anonymised 14-question online survey was distributed among 27 orthopaedic departments in German-speaking parts of Europe. It was available to trainees and consultants between 22/10/2020 and 05/06/2021. The questionnaire collected information regarding the participants' habits of consulting radiology reports depending on the imaging modality, reasons for not reading reports and asked for improvement recommendations for the radiology service.

RESULTS

81 orthopaedists participated. 20% would never consult a plain radiograph report. In contrast, only 4% would never consult a CT report and no one claimed to never consult an MRI report. 43%, 67% and 86% would routinely consult radiology reports of radiographs, CT and MRI studies, respectively. Long time to report availability (24%), a general lack of time (19%) and too long texts (17%) were the most popular reasons for not consulting the reports. 62% of participants voted to sometimes disagree with the reports and in cases of opinion discrepancy 51% would always or often contact the radiologist. 64% preferred to be informed directly via phone about relevant unexpected findings. Most popular report improvement recommendations were more rapid report availability (24%), inclusion of significant images (19%) and inclusion of more angle and distance measurements (16%). In the free text column, a desire for direct interdisciplinary discussion of equivocal cases was often stated (30%).

CONCLUSIONS

Concluding, this survey showed that orthopaedic surgeons routinely consult radiology reports. The participants expressed a desire for increased, direct interdisciplinary communication to solve equivocal cases and improve patient care.

The Perfect Storm: Exam of a Medical Error and Factors Contributing to Its Possible Escalation

OBJECTIVE

After an initial medical misadventure, failure of recognition and continuing factors that could perpetuate the error are examined.

METHODS

A critical evaluation of the continuum of care after the initial error was conducted through chart review and comparison to published standards.

RESULTS

Analysis of the continuum of care after the original error demonstrated numerous system failures that should have alerted the providers to the initial error.

DISCUSSION

Technology, electronic medical records, lack of critical communications, and short cuts have the potential to not recognize patient care safety issues and potential harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical errors are multifactorial. Blame casting and accusations are not productive. Critical analysis of systems/processes, current technology, eliminating shortcuts, and critical communications may increase patient safety.

A practical system that enables physicians to respond expeditiously to significant unexpected findings (SUFs) in radiological reports

PURPOSE

To demonstrate effectiveness of our present radiological report check flowchart enabling physicians to respond to significant unexpected findings (SUFs), by comparing the response periods from the examination date to the action date on untreated SUFs between the previous and present versions of our flowchart.

METHODS

In the flowchart's previous version used February-October 2019, SUFs, which were notified by email, were audited every month. The physician received a phone call and was asked to act on the untreated SUF. In the flowchart's present version used from November 2019 to May 2020, SUFs were audited every 2 weeks. The physician and his/her chief were asked to return a written response to the untreated SUF. We evaluated the difference in the response periods between the previous and present versions of the flowchart.

RESULTS

With the previous flowchart's use, untreated SUFs were 43 of 229 SUFs (18.8%) with the present flowchart untreated SUFs were 22 of 130 SUFs (16.9%). All SUFs in both periods were eventually responded. The present flowchart (median/range, 25/11-70 days) significantly had shorter response periods than the previous flowchart (70/16-290 days) (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The present flowchart employing a shortened primary audit interval, a written response, and the department chief's intervention, helped reduce the response periods.

The role of clinical history in the interpretation of chest radiographs

OBJECTIVE

This review will appraise the literature pertaining to the influences that clinical history has on the action of assessing the chest radiograph.

KEY FINDINGS

There remains conflicting evidence on the impact of clinical history on chest radiography. Some research suggests that clinical history has the potential to influence the reporter in a negative way by limiting their search strategy to a more focussed search. Image interpretation is more accurate when reporters are allowed to conduct a free search of the chest image, untainted by preconceived concepts.

CONCLUSION

Clinical history needs to be accessed appropriately to aid and not stifle accurate image interpretation. Reporters need to be aware of the potential bias clinical history can introduce to their reporting and develop strategies to alleviate this as much as possible.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

A greater understanding of the potential bias of clinical history on the process of image interpretation is required by all reporters. Reporters need to develop an approach and strategy when accessing clinical history. Novice reporters need to be educated regarding the impact of clinical history on their reporting.

Assessment of actionable findings in radiology reports

PURPOSE

The American College of Radiology (ACR) Actionable Reporting Work Group defined three categories of imaging findings that require additional, nonroutine communication with the referring physician because of their urgency or unexpectedness. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of actionable findings in radiology reports, and to assess how well radiologists agree on the categorisation of actionable findings.

METHOD

From 124,909 consecutive radiology reports stored in the electronic health record system of a large university hospital, 1000 reports were randomly selected. Two radiologists independently annotated all actionable findings according to the three categories of urgency defined by the ACR Work Group. Annotation differences were resolved in a consensus meeting and a final category was established for each report. Interannotator agreement was measured by accuracy and the kappa coefficient.

RESULTS

The prevalence of the three categories of actionable findings together was 32.5 %. Of all reports, 10.9 % were from patients seen in the emergency department. Prevalence of actionable findings for these patients (45.9 %) was considerably higher than for patients in routine clinical care (30.9 %). Interannotator agreement scores on the categorisation of actionable findings were 0.812 for accuracy and 0.616 for kappa coefficient.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of actionable findings in radiology reports is high. The interannotator agreement scores are moderate, indicating that categorisation of actionable findings is a difficult task. To avoid unneeded increase in the workload of radiologists, in particular in routine practice, clinical context may need to be considered in deciding whether a finding is actionable.

Use of a Macro as Nudge Factor in Communication Between Radiologists and Referring Physicians

INTRODUCTION/METHODS

Radiologists provide value through communication of imaging findings. We outline a quality improvement effort using a dedicated dictation macro as a behavioral nudge to increase direct communication between radiologists and referring physicians. Use of the macro was encouraged by departmental leadership and publicised widely prior to implementation. Monthly data regarding the use of the macro and corresponding departmental volumes were acquired over a 24 month period.

RESULTS

Over the 24-month study period, there were 1,334,555 total exams performed and 52,276 total communications (3.90%; monthly range 2.21-4.67%). The greatest increase in adoption rate occurred during the initial 4-month period, with sustained rates of communication achieved after month 4. Results were more frequently communicated to a clinician when a resident trainee was involved in the dictation process. The greatest number of documented communications was for x-ray, followed by Computed Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Ultrasound (US), and nuclear medicine. Inpatient studies (7.23%) were communicated at a statistically significantly higher rate than Emergency Department (ED) (3.86%) or Outpatient (OP) studies (1.31%), P < 0.0001 for all comparisons. The rate of documented communication steadily increased across all patient classes.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that simple interventions to increase the rate of documented communication can have durable results, and highlight the critical role radiologists play in timely and effective patient care delivery. Introduction of a communication macro coupled with departmental nudges resulted in increased direct communication of imaging results. This effort has promoted mutual engagement between radiologists and their colleagues, and demonstrates the active role of radiologists in direct imaging consultation.

Decreasing radiologist burnout through informatics-based solutions

Increased performance demands have interacted with suboptimal use of technology and contributed to burnout among radiologists. Although the problem of radiologist burnout has been well documented, there is a gap in the literature in terms of how technology can be better utilized to lessen the problem. Informatics-based modifications to existing technology hold the potential to reduce the amount of time radiologists spend on noninterpretive tasks, decrease interruptions, facilitate connections with colleagues, and improve patient care. Examples of successful modifications to technology are presented and discussed in relation to how they contribute to improving workplace engagement among radiologists.

Analysis of Perceptual Expertise in Radiology - Current Knowledge and a New Perspective

Radiologists rely principally on visual inspection to detect, describe, and classify findings in medical images. As most interpretive errors in radiology are perceptual in nature, understanding the path to radiologic expertise during image analysis is essential to educate future generations of radiologists. We review the perceptual tasks and challenges in radiologic diagnosis, discuss models of radiologic image perception, consider the application of perceptual learning methods in medical training, and suggest a new approach to understanding perceptional expertise. Specific principled enhancements to educational practices in radiology promise to deepen perceptual expertise among radiologists with the goal of improving training and reducing medical error.

Factors Impacting the Use of Terminology to Convey Diagnostic Certainty in Radiology Reports

Background:

Variable use of phrases expressing diagnostic uncertainty can lead to ambiguous radiology reports, a concern for information processing.

Objective:

This study aimed to quantify the usage of phrases conveying diagnostic certainty for abdominal imaging findings and assess factors that impact use of phrases with “good agreement” between radiologists and referring providers.

Methods:

This retrospective, Institutional Review Board-Approved study included all diagnostic reports generated by the Abdominal Radiology Division at an academic medical center July-September 2016. We assessed the use of 16 diagnostic certainty phrases using information retrieval from the Impression section of radiology reports. Phrases with good provider agreement for conveying the level of certainty are defined as “good agreement” phrases - including “diagnostic of”, “represents” and “unlikely.” We assessed the impact of imaging modality, trainee contribution to report generation, and individual radiologists.

Results:

In 5,598 radiology reports, 2,071 (37%) contained diagnostic certainty phrases, 119 (6%) of which were “good agreement” phrases. There was a significant difference between how frequently “good agreement” phrases were used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT) and X-ray reports (p=0.0003). There was a significant variation among attending radiologists on the use of “good agreement” phrases (p<0.0019). There was no difference in the use of “good agreement” phrases in reports generated by attending radiologists alone compared to reports with trainees.

Conclusion:

Although phrases to convey diagnostic certainty were commonly used in radiology reports, the use of phrases with a good agreement was uncommon. Standardizing terminology to convey diagnostic certainty may reduce ambiguity in radiology reports and generate more accurate information processing tools.

An International Survey on Clinical Reporting of PET/CT Examinations: A Starting Point for Cross-Specialty Engagement

Combined PET/CT imaging has become an integral part of patient management, particularly in oncology. After the imaging examination, a report of the findings is created by expert readers and sent to the referrers as a basis for subsequent decisions. In view of the known wide variation in operational models for PET/CT imaging, we surveyed PET/CT users on their approaches toward PET/CT reporting. Methods: The electronic survey comprised 28 questions on the demographics and professional background of the responders, as well as questions on the structure and quality of PET/CT reports, including the type of reported information, the use of reporting standards, and the mix of reporting standards and expert opinions. The survey was active for 6 wk in early 2018. In total, 242 responses were collected worldwide. Results: The responders were mainly from Europe (78%), with 22% being nuclear medicine specialists, 42% radiologists, 22% dual board-certified, 10% residents in either nuclear medicine or radiology, and 5% medical physicists, radiographers, or oncologists. A slim majority (55%) of responses indicated reports being done according to the European Association of Nuclear Medicine 2015 guidelines for ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT imaging, but 30% of responders were unaware of these guidelines. Report structures varied across sites, with most sites (38%) reporting the PET findings with supplementary localization information from CT, whereas 27% of sites reported along the lines of a CT report with supplementary PET information. One third of the sites included information on the TNM stage of the oncology patient in all reports, whereas 34% and 12% of sites included this information occasionally or only for selected tumors, respectively. For therapy response assessment, various well-established criteria were used. The number of sites utilizing these criteria ranged from 15% (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria) to 57% (Deauville criteria). Conclusion: Broad variation in the PET/CT reporting strategies adopted for oncology studies and widespread lack of awareness of existing guidelines for PET/CT reporting are evident from responses to this survey, raising concerns as to whether reporting clinicians are optimally using the complementary information from each modality. Greater efforts are needed to ensure harmonization of reporting practices.