Variation between experienced observers in the interpretation of accident and emergency radiographs

Utilisation of radiographer comments to reduce errors in the radiology department

INTRODUCTION

Radiographer commenting is a written account of suspected abnormalities identified on medical imaging examinations by the radiographer at the time of image acquisition. Radiographer comments were originally implemented to support emergency clinicians; however, they may also have the potential to support radiologists in reducing missed findings. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate if a newly implemented radiographer comment system could reduce the number of errors made in radiology reports for general X-rays. Incidental findings from multisite collaborative research led to the hypothesis that in some cases radiographer comments could accurately detect abnormal X-ray appearances that were not otherwise documented in the radiologist report, thereby enabling results to be revised and errors collaboratively reduced [1].

METHODS

This study was conducted at an 800-bed hospital, where 92% of general radiographers self-selected to participate. Radiographer comments were provided to referring physicians through the electronic medical record and could be made for any emergency or inpatient general X-ray examinations. All comments made over a 12-month period were audited against the corresponding radiologist report. Radiologists were blinded to radiographer comments at the time of reporting. Where discrepancies between the radiographer comment and radiologist report arose, additional radiologist review or subsequent imaging reports were used to determine the accurate interpretation. The number of discrepant radiographer comments that were deemed true positive (TP) and provided new and correct diagnostic information compared to the radiologist report were identified. These were converted to a percentage of total radiographer comments that were therefore able to positively influence radiologist report accuracy. The number of discrepant cases where radiographer comments were deemed false positive (FP) was also measured and converted to a percentage of the total comments. Confidence intervals for both TP and FP binomial proportions were calculated using the Wilson Score Interval.

RESULTS

Over 12 months, 282 radiographer comments were made to alert clinically significant radiographic appearances on general X-ray. Of these, 32 radiographer comments were discrepant with the report. Of these 32 comments, 24 were deemed TP meaning they correctly identified a pathological imaging appearance that was not otherwise documented in the radiology report. Therefore, 8.5% of all radiographer comments added value by correctly identifying a pathology that was not otherwise documented, 95% CI (5.8% - 12.4%). This enabled results to be promptly amended and reporting errors collaboratively reduced. Conversely, eight (2.8%) radiographer comments were discrepant with the report but deemed FP and did not add value to the investigation, 95% CI (1.4% - 5.5%). The remaining 250 non-discrepant comments did not contribute to error reduction but provided real-time abnormality detection that benefitted managing teams.

CONCLUSION

These findings are consistent with previous literature proposing radiographer comments may provide a safety net for radiologists due to factors such as direct patient contact, ability to expand on clinical history, and difference in accumulated expertise. This study demonstrates that radiographer comments may be effectively used as a multidisciplinary error-reduction tool to assist radiologists in their important role and improve clinical outcomes.

Pediatric chest radiograph interpretation in a real-life setting

Chest radiography is a frequently used imaging modality in children. However, only fair to moderate inter-observer agreement has been reported between chest radiograph interpreters. Most studies were not performed in real-world clinical settings. Our aims were to examine the agreement between emergency department pediatricians and board-certified radiologists in a pediatric real-life setting and to identify clinical risk factors for the discrepancies. Included were children aged 3 months to 18 years who underwent chest radiography in the emergency department not during the regular hours of radiologist interpretation. Every case was reviewed by an expert panel. Inter-observer agreement between emergency department pediatricians and board-certified radiologists was assessed by Cohen's kappa; risk factors for disagreement were analyzed. Among 1373 cases, the level of agreement between emergency department pediatricians and board-certified radiologists was "moderate" (k = 0.505). For radiographs performed after midnight, agreement was only "fair" (k = 0.391). The expert panel identified clinically relevant disagreements in 260 (18.9%) of the radiographs. Over-treatment of antibiotics was identified in 121 (8.9%) of the cases and under-treatment in 79 (5.8%). In a multivariable logistic regression, the following parameters were found to be significantly associated with disagreements: neurological background (p = 0.046), fever (p = 0.001), dyspnea (p = 0.014), and radiographs performed after midnight (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate agreement was found between emergency department pediatricians and board-certified radiologists in interpreting chest radiographs. Neurological background, fever, dyspnea, and radiographs performed after midnight were identified as risk factors for disagreement. Implementing these findings could facilitate the use of radiologist expertise, save time and resources, and potentially improve patient care.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Only fair to moderate inter-observer agreement has been reported between chest radiograph interpreters. • Most studies were not performed in real-world clinical settings. Clinical risk factors for disagreements have not been reported.

WHAT IS NEW

• In this study, which included 1373 cases at the emergency department, the level of agreement between interpreters was only "moderate." • The major clinical parameters associated with interpretation discrepancies were neurological background, fever, dyspnea, and interpretations conducted during the night shift.

Medical Malpractice and Diagnostic Radiology: Challenges and Opportunities

Medicolegal challenges in radiology are broad and impact both radiologists and patients. Radiologists may be affected directly by malpractice litigation or indirectly due to defensive imaging ordering practices. Patients also could be harmed physically, emotionally, or financially by unnecessary tests or procedures. As technology advances, the incorporation of artificial intelligence into medicine will bring with it new medicolegal challenges and opportunities. This article reviews the current and emerging direct and indirect effects of medical malpractice on radiologists and summarizes evidence-based solutions.

A Multi-Disciplinary MRI Assessment May Optimize the Evaluation of Chondral Lesions in Acute Ankle Fractures: A Prospective Study

Chondral lesions (CL) in the ankle following acute fractures are frequently overlooked immediately after the injury or diagnosed at a later stage, leading to persistent symptoms despite successful surgery. The literature presents a wide range of discrepancies in the reported incidence of CLs in acute ankle fractures. The objective of this prospective study is to provide a precise assessment of the occurrence of chondral lesions (CLs) in acute ankle fractures through MRI scans conducted immediately after the trauma and prior to scheduled surgery. Furthermore, the study aims to highlight the disparities in the interpretation of these MRI scans, particularly concerning the size and extent of chondral damage, between radiologists and orthopedic surgeons. Over the period of three years, all patients presenting with an unstable ankle fracture that underwent operative treatment were consecutively included in this single-center prospective study. Preoperative MRIs were obtained for all included patients within 10 days of the trauma and were evaluated by a trauma surgeon and a radiologist specialized in musculoskeletal MRI blinded to each other's results. The location of the lesions was documented, as well as their size and ICRS classification. Correlations and kappa coefficients as well as the p-values were calculated. A total of 65 patients were included, with a mean age of 41 years. The evaluation of the orthopedic surgeon showed CLs in 52.3% of patients. CLs occurred mainly on the tibial articular surface (70.6%). Most talar lesions were located laterally (11.2%). The observed CLs were mainly ICRS grade 4. According to the radiologist, 69.2% of the patients presented with CLs. The most common location was the talar dome (48.9%), especially laterally. Most detected CLs were graded ICRS 3a. The correlation between the two observers was weak/fair regarding the detection and classification of CLs and moderate regarding the size of the detected CLs. To enhance the planning of surgical treatment for ankle chondral lesions (CLs), it may be beneficial to conduct an interdisciplinary preoperative assessment of the performed scans. This collaborative approach can optimize the evaluation of ankle CLs and improve overall treatment strategies.

Computer-assisted diagnosis for an early identification of lung cancer in chest X rays

Computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) algorithms have shown its usefulness for the identification of pulmonary nodules in chest x-rays, but its capability to diagnose lung cancer (LC) is unknown. A CAD algorithm for the identification of pulmonary nodules was created and used on a retrospective cohort of patients with x-rays performed in 2008 and not examined by a radiologist when obtained. X-rays were sorted according to the probability of pulmonary nodule, read by a radiologist and the evolution for the following three years was assessed. The CAD algorithm sorted 20,303 x-rays and defined four subgroups with 250 images each (percentiles ≥ 98, 66, 33 and 0). Fifty-eight pulmonary nodules were identified in the ≥ 98 percentile (23,2%), while only 64 were found in lower percentiles (8,5%) (p < 0.001). A pulmonary nodule was confirmed by the radiologist in 39 out of 173 patients in the high-probability group who had follow-up information (22.5%), and in 5 of them a LC was diagnosed with a delay of 11 months (12.8%). In one quarter of the chest x-rays considered as high-probability for pulmonary nodule by a CAD algorithm, the finding is confirmed and corresponds to an undiagnosed LC in one tenth of the cases.

Concordance between a gastrointestinal consultant radiologist, a consultant radiologist and qualified reporting radiographers interpreting abdominal radiographs

INTRODUCTION

Radiographers can accurately report musculoskeletal and chest radiographs, but there is paucity of research comparing the performance of reporting radiographers (RRs) with consultant radiologists when interpreting and reporting abdominal radiographs. This study assessed interobserver agreement in the clinical setting between reporting radiographers and a consultant radiologist compared to an expert gastrointestinal radiologist in a District General Hospital. Major discordant reports affecting patient management were also examined.

METHODS

126 abdominal radiographs reported by 3 RRs in clinical practice were randomly selected and reported by a consultant radiologist and index gastrointestinal radiologist. The reports of the RRs and consultant radiologist were compared against the reports made by the index radiologist for agreement by a colorectal consultant surgeon. All 126 reports were scored as being in either complete agreement, minor disagreement or major disagreement which would have resulted in a change to patient management.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall agreement between the consultant radiologist (CR) and RRs when compared to the index radiologist (CR: n = 90/126, 71.4% and RRs: n = 94/126, 74.6%. p = 0.57). Major disagreements were found, but there was no significant difference between both groups (CR: n = 23/126, 18.3% and RRs: n = 17/126, 13.5%. p = 0.30).

CONCLUSION

RRs can report abdominal radiographs to a comparable level of agreement as a consultant radiologist in the clinical setting. There was no significant difference in reports deemed to affect patient management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study addresses the gap in assessing the performance of RRs reporting abdominal radiographs. This small scale study indicates that radiographers could provide additional support in the reporting of abdominal radiographs. This would help to reduce radiologist workload and enhance the role of the reporting radiographer.

CLASSIFICATION

Agreement between reporting radiographers and radiologists interpreting and reporting abdominal radiographs.

Reducing diagnostic errors in the emergency department at the time of patient treatment

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to compare and combine the radiographic interpretation accuracy of emergency clinicians and radiographers in clinical practice.

METHODS

A total of 838 radiographic examinations were included for analysis from 1 August to 24 August 2020. The range of examinations reviewed included the appendicular and axial skeleton, chest and abdomen. Both paediatric and adult examinations were reviewed. The emergency clinician's and radiographer's interpretations for each examination were compared to the radiologist's report. This allowed mean sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy to be calculated.

RESULTS

The radiographer's interpretation demonstrated a mean sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 80%, 98% and 92%, respectively. The emergency clinician's interpretation demonstrated a mean sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 82%, 95% and 89%, respectively. When the radiographer's and emergency clinician's interpretations were combined, it yielded a mean sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 90%, 93% and 92%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to directly compare and combine the accuracy of an emergency clinician's radiographic interpretation with a radiographer's interpretation within clinical practice. The present study demonstrated that with the addition of a radiographer's interpretation, an emergency clinician's interpretation can be more accurate than the emergency clinician's interpretation in isolation. This highlights the value of a radiographer's interpretation that can complement an emergency clinician's interpretation when a radiologist's report is unavailable.

After-hour trauma-radiograph interpretation in the emergency centre of a District Hospital

Introduction

Plain radiographs remain a first-line trauma investigation. Most trauma radiographs worldwide are reported by junior doctors. This study assesses the accuracy of after-hour acute trauma radiograph reporting by emergency centre (EC) doctors in an African district hospital.

Methods

An institutional review board approved retrospective descriptive study over two consecutive weekends in February 2020. The radiologist report on the admission radiographs of adult trauma patients was compared with the initial EC interpretation. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for EC interpretation were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). The association between reporting accuracy and anatomical region, mechanism of injury, time of investigation, and the number of abnormalities per radiograph was assessed.

Results

140 radiographs were included, of which 49 (35%) were abnormal. EC doctors recorded (95%CI) 77% (69-84%) accuracy, 38% (25-54%) sensitivity, 97% (91-99%) specificity, 86% (65-95%) PPV and 76% (71-80%) NPV. Performance was associated with the anatomical region (p=0.02), mechanism of injury (p=<0.01) time of day (p=0.04) and the number of abnormalities on the film (p=<0.01). The highest sensitivity was achieved in reports of the appendicular skeleton (42%) and in the setting of simple blunt trauma (62%). Overall accuracy was in line with the range (44%-99%) reported in the international literature.

Discussion

Accurate reporting of acute trauma radiographs is challenging. Key factors impact performance. Further training of junior doctors in this area of clinical practice is recommended. Future work should focus on assessing the impact of such training on reporting performance.

Repeatability of radiographic assessments for feline hip dysplasia suggest consensus scores in radiology are more uncertain than commonly assumed

Variation in the diagnostic interpretation of radiographs is a well-recognised problem in human and veterinary medicine. One common solution is to create a 'consensus' score based on a majority or unanimous decision from multiple observers. While consensus approaches are generally assumed to improve diagnostic repeatability, the extent to which consensus scores are themselves repeatable has rarely been examined. Here we use repeated assessments by three radiologists of 196 hip radiographs from 98 cats within a health-screening programme to examine intra-observer, inter-observer, majority-consensus and unanimous-consensus repeatability scores for feline hip dysplasia. In line with other studies, intra-observer and inter-observer repeatability was moderate (63-71%), and related to the reference assessment and time taken to reach a decision. Consensus scores did show reduced variation between assessments compared to individuals, but consensus repeatability was far from perfect. Only 75% of majority consensus scores were in agreement between assessments, and based on Bayesian multinomial modelling we estimate that unanimous consensus scores can have repeatabilities as low as 83%. These results clearly show that consensus scores in radiology can have large uncertainties, and that future studies in both human and veterinary medicine need to include consensus-uncertainty estimates if we are to properly interpret radiological diagnoses and the extent to which consensus scores improve diagnostic accuracy.

Agreement in the reporting of General Practitioner requested musculoskeletal radiographs: Reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the inter-observer agreement of reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist when reporting General Practitioner (GP) requested musculoskeletal radiographs. The potential effect of discordant reports on patient management and outcome was also examined.

METHODS

Three reporting radiographers, three consultant radiologists and an index radiologist reported on a retrospective randomised sample of 219 GP requested musculoskeletal radiographs, in conditions simulating clinical practice. A speciality doctor in radiology compared the observers' reports with the index radiologist report for agreement and assessed whether any discordance between reports was clinically important.

RESULTS

Overall agreement with the index radiologist was 47.0% (95% CI, 40.5-53.6) and 51.6% (95% CI, 45.0-58.1) for the consultant radiologists and reporting radiographers, respectively. The results for the appendicular and axial skeleton were 48.6% (95% CI, 41.3-55.9) and 40.9% (95% CI, 27.7-55.6) for the radiologists, and 52.6% (95% CI, 45.2-59.8) and 47.7% (95% CI, 33.8-62.1) for the radiographers, respectively. The difference in overall observer agreement between the two professional groups with the index radiologist was not statistically significant (p = 0.34). Discordance with the index radiologist's reports was judged to be clinically important in less than 10% of the observer's reports.

CONCLUSION

Reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists demonstrate similar levels of concordance with an index radiologist when reporting GP requested musculoskeletal radiographs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

These findings contribute to the wider evidence base that selected radiographers with appropriate postgraduate education and training are proficient to report on musculoskeletal radiographs, irrespective of referral source.

Radiology Reporting Errors: Learning from Report Addenda

Background The addition of new information to a completed radiology report in the form of an "addendum" conveys a variety of information, ranging from less significant typographical errors to serious omissions and misinterpretations. Understanding the reasons for errors and their clinical implications will lead to better clinical governance and radiology practice. Aims This article assesses the common reasons which lead to addenda generation to completed reports and their clinical implications. Subjects and Methods Retrospective study was conducted by reviewing addenda to computed tomography (CT), ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging reports between January 2018 to June 2018, to note the frequency and classification of report addenda. Results Rate of addenda generation was 1.1% ( n = 1,076) among the 97,003 approved cross-sectional radiology reports. Errors contributed to 71.2% ( n = 767) of addenda, most commonly communication (29.3%, n = 316) and observational errors (20.8%, n = 224), and 28.7% were nonerrors aimed at providing additional clinically relevant information. Majority of the addenda (82.3%, n = 886) did not have a significant clinical impact. CT and ultrasound reports accounted for 36.9% ( n = 398) and 35.2% ( n = 379) share, respectively. A time gap of 1 to 7 days was noted for 46.8% ( n = 504) addenda and 37.6% ( n = 405) were issued in less than a day. Radiologists with more than 6-year experience created majority (1.5%, n = 456) of addenda. Those which were added to reports generated during emergency hours contributed to 23.2% ( n = 250) of the addenda. Conclusion The study has identified the prevalence of report addenda in a radiology practice involving picture archiving and communication system in a tertiary care center in India. The etiology included both errors and non-errors. Results of this audit were used to generate a checklist and put protocols that will help decrease serious radiology misses and common errors.

Comparison of reporting radiographers' and medical doctors' performance in reporting radiographs of the appendicular skeleton, referred by the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

There is an increasing trend towards deploying reporting radiographers in Danish hospitals who, among various professional groups, interpret and report skeletal radiographs from the emergency department (ED). This study aimed to compare the quality of the reports issued by reporting radiographers to three different groups of medical doctors (MDs) who interpret or report skeletal radiographs at the ED.

METHODS

Four professional groups (i.e. four reporting radiographers, two radiology trainees, two orthopaedic senior trainees, and two orthopaedic trainees) reported 100 radiographs of the appendicular skeleton. The Consequence of clinical Outcome score (CO-score), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of each group were compared. The relative risk of a false-negative, false-positive or wrong result, the risk of a serious error, as well as the odds ratio of a more severe CO-score for each of the three MD groups, were compared to the reporting radiographers.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between the groups in reference to the CO-score (P ≤ 0.001), accuracy (P = .003), specificity (P = .022), and in the proportion of serious errors (P ≤ 0.001). Compared to the reporting radiographers, all three groups of MDs showed a significantly higher CO-score and a significantly increased risk of a wrong result. Moreover, two of the MD groups showed a significantly increased risk of a false-positive result and for severe errors.

CONCLUSION

Based on the CO-score, the relative risk of errors, which could potentially cause malpractice in treatment and patient recall, significantly decreased when the reports were completed by reporting radiographers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

To explore the need for a 24-h radiographer reporting service to the EDs, an upscaled study, like the current, with more participants representing the professional groups is highly recommended.

Comparison of chest X-ray interpretation by Emergency Department clinicians and radiologists in suspected COVID-19 infection: a retrospective cohort study

Objectives

We describe the inter-rater agreement between Emergency Department (ED) clinicians and reporting radiologists in the interpretation of chest X-rays (CXRs) in patients presenting to ED with suspected COVID-19.

Methods

We undertook a retrospective cohort study of patients with suspected COVID-19. We compared ED clinicians' and radiologists' interpretation of the CXRs according to British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) guidelines, using the area under the receiver operator curve (ROC area).

Results

CXRs of 152 cases with suspected COVID-19 infection were included. Sensitivity and specificity for 'classic' COVID-19 CXR findings reported by ED clinician was 84 and 83%, respectively, with a ROC area of 0.84 (95%CI 0.77 to 0.90). Accuracy improved with ED clinicians' experience, with ROC areas of 0.73 (95%CI 0.45 to 1.00), 0.81 (95%CI 0.73 to 0.89), 1.00 (95%CI 1.00 to 1.00) and 0.90 (95%CI 0.70 to 1.00) for foundation year doctors, senior house officers, higher speciality trainees and ED consultants, respectively (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

ED clinicians demonstrated moderate inter-rater agreement with reporting radiologists according to the BSTI COVID-19 classifications. The improvement in accuracy with ED clinician experience suggests training of junior ED clinicians in the interpretation of COVID-19 related CXRs might be beneficial. Large-scale survey studies might be useful in the further evaluation of this topic.

Advances in knowledge

This is the first study to examine inter-rater agreement between ED clinicians and radiologists in regards to COVID-19 CXR interpretation.Further service configurations such as 24-hr hot reporting of CXRs can be guided by these data, as well as an ongoing, nationwide follow-up study.

PadChest: A large chest x-ray image dataset with multi-label annotated reports

We present a labeled large-scale, high resolution chest x-ray dataset for the automated exploration of medical images along with their associated reports. This dataset includes more than 160,000 images obtained from 67,000 patients that were interpreted and reported by radiologists at San Juan Hospital (Spain) from 2009 to 2017, covering six different position views and additional information on image acquisition and patient demography. The reports were labeled with 174 different radiographic findings, 19 differential diagnoses and 104 anatomic locations organized as a hierarchical taxonomy and mapped onto standard Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) terminology. Of these reports, 27% were manually annotated by trained physicians and the remaining set was labeled using a supervised method based on a recurrent neural network with attention mechanisms. The labels generated were then validated in an independent test set achieving a 0.93 Micro-F1 score. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the largest public chest x-ray databases suitable for training supervised models concerning radiographs, and the first to contain radiographic reports in Spanish. The PadChest dataset can be downloaded from http://bimcv.cipf.es/bimcv-projects/padchest/.

Prevalence of Incidental Benign and Malignant Lesions on Radiographs Ordered by Orthopaedic Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Radiographs are the most commonly available diagnostic imaging modalities used to evaluate orthopaedic conditions. In addition to suspected findings based on the initial indication to obtain radiographic images, incidental findings may be observed as well, some of which may have notable medical and legal ramifications. This study evaluates the number of incidental findings reported from orthopaedic radiographs ordered in an academic orthopaedic multispecialty group over 1 year.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of 13,948 eligible radiographs recorded at our institution over a 12-month period. Reports were categorized based on examination type. Incidental findings were categorized as having concern for possible malignancy versus likely benign conditions. The possibly malignant findings were then further subdivided into either bone or lung malignancies. The benign findings were subcategorized by etiology and anatomic location.

RESULTS

Thirteen thousand nine hundred forty-eight radiographs were evaluated, and 289 (2.07%) incidental findings were identified. The three study categories with the highest prevalence of incidental findings were spine (3.96%), leg length alignment (3.94%), and pelvic and hip (2.81%) radiographs. The three most common types of incidental findings identified were for possible malignancy or metastases in bone (30.1%), benign bone disease (24.9%), and gastrointestinal conditions (6.57%). Follow-up was recommended for 122 (42.2%) incidental findings.

DISCUSSION

This study describes the prevalence of incidental findings on orthopaedic radiographs in adults. Axial radiographs such as of the spine and pelvis are more likely to report an incidental finding as opposed to appendicular radiographs of distal extremities. The exception is leg alignment radiographs that include the entire lower extremity and pelvis and image a larger area of the body. Nearly one-third of incidental findings were suspicious for possible malignancy or metastases. Additional diagnostic workup with focused imaging is often recommended. This information is useful to orthopaedic surgeons who read their own radiographs (without formal radiologist interpretation) to increase awareness of common, concerning incidental findings that may be missed and warrant additional follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Reducing risk in the emergency department: a 12-month prospective longitudinal study of radiographer preliminary image evaluations

INTRODUCTION

Innovations are necessary to accommodate the increasing demands on emergency departments whilst maintaining a high level of patient care and safety. Radiographer Preliminary Image Evaluation (PIE) is one such innovation. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of radiographer PIE in clinical practice within an emergency department over 12 months.

METHODS

A total of 6290 radiographic examinations were reviewed from 15 January 2016 to 15 January 2017. The range of adult and paediatric examinations incorporated in the review included the appendicular and axial skeleton including the chest and abdomen. Each examination was compared to the radiologist's report this allowed calculated mean sensitivity and specificity values to indicate if the radiographer's PIE was of a true negative/positive or false negative/positive value. Cases of no PIE participation or series' marked as unsure for pathology by the radiographer were also recorded. This allowed mean sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy to be calculated.

RESULTS

The study reported a mean ± 95% confidence level (standard deviation) for sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, no participation and unsure of 71.1% ± 2.4% (6.1), 98.4% ± 0.04% (0.9), 92.0% ± 0.68% (1.9), 5.1% (1.6) and 3.6% (0.14) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has demonstrated that the participating radiographers provided a consistent PIE service while maintaining a reasonably high diagnostic accuracy. This form of image interpretation can complement an emergency referrer's diagnosis when a radiologist's report is unavailable at the time of patient treatment. PIE promotes a reliable enhancement of the radiographer's role with the multi-disciplinary team.

An audit of the polytrauma fracture detection rate of clinicians evaluating lodox statscan bodygrams in two South African public sector trauma units

BACKGROUND

Increasing global demand for specialized radiological investigations has resulted in delayed or non-reporting of plain trauma radiographs by radiologists. This is particularly true in resource-limited environments, where referring clinicians rely largely on their own radiographic interpretation. A wide accuracy range has been documented for non-radiologist reporting of conventional trauma radiographs. The Lodox Statscan whole-body digital X-ray machine is a relatively new technology that poses unique interpretive challenges. The fracture detection rate of trauma clinicians utilizing this modality has not been determined.

OBJECTIVE

An audit of the polytrauma fracture detection rate of clinicians evaluating Lodox Statscan bodygrams in two South African public-sector Trauma Units.

METHODS

A retrospective descriptive study of imaging data of Cape Town Level 1-equivalent public-sector Trauma Units during March-April 2015. Statscan bodygrams acquired for adult polytrauma triage were reviewed and correlated with follow-up imaging and patient records. Missed fractures were stratified by body part, mechanism of injury and ventilatory support. The fracture detection rate was determined with 95% confidence. The Generalised Fischer Exact Test assessed any association between the fracture site and failure of detection. Specialist orthopaedic review assessed the potential need for surgical management of missed fractures.

RESULTS

227 patients (male = 193, 85%; mean age: 33 years) were included; 195 fractures were demonstrated on the whole-body triage projections. Lower limb fractures predominated (n = 66, 34%). The fracture detection rate was 89% (95% CI = 86-93%), with the site of fracture associated with failure of detection (p = 0.01). Twelve of 21 undetected fractures (57%) involved the elbow or shoulder girdle. All elbow fractures (n = 3, 100%), more than half the shoulder girdle fractures (9/13,69%) and 12% (15/123) of extremity fractures were undetected. One missed fracture (1/21,4.7%) unequivocally required surgical management, while a further 7 (7/21, 33.3%) could potentially have benefitted from surgery, depending on follow-up imaging findings.

CONCLUSION

This is the first analysis of the accuracy of bodygram polytrauma fracture detection by clinicians. Particular review of the shoulder girdle, elbow and extremities for subtle fractures, in addition to standardized limb positioning, are recommended for improved diagnostic accuracy in this setting. These findings can inform clinician training courses in this domain.

Radiograph Interpretation Discrepancies in a Community Hospital Emergency Department

Introduction

In many hospitals, off-hours emergency department (ED) radiographs are not read by a radiologist until the following morning and are instead interpreted by the emergency physician (EP) at the time of service. Studies have found conflicting results regarding the radiographic interpretation discrepancies between EPs and trained radiologists. The aim of this study was to identify the number of radiologic interpretation discrepancies between EPs and radiologists in a community ED setting.

Methods

Using a pre-existing logbook of radiologic discrepancies as well as our institution’s picture archiving and communication system, all off-hours interpretation discrepancies between January 2012 and January 2015 were reviewed and recorded in a de-identified fashion. We recorded the type of radiograph obtained for each patient. Discrepancy grades were recorded based on a pre-existing 1–4 scale defined in the institution’s protocol logbook as Grade 1 (no further action needed); Grade 2 (call to the patient or pharmacy); Grade 3 (return to ED for further treatment, e.g., fracture not splinted); Grade 4 (return to ED for serious risk, e.g., pneumothorax, bowel obstruction). We also recorded the total number of radiographs formally interpreted by EPs during the prescribed time-frame to determine overall agreement between EPs and radiologists.

Results

There were 1044 discrepancies out of 16,111 EP reads, indicating 93.5% agreement. Patients averaged 48.4 ± 25.0 years of age and 53.3% were female; 25.1% were over-calls by EPs. The majority of discrepancies were minor with 75.8% Grade 1 and 22.3% Grade 2. Only 1.7% were Grade 3, which required return to the ED for further treatment. A small number of discrepancies, 0.2%, were Grade 4. Grade 4 discrepancies accounted for two of the 16,111 total reads, equivalent to 0.01%. A slight disagreement in finding between EP and radiologist accounted for 8.3% of discrepancies.

Conclusion

Results suggest that plain radiographic studies can be interpreted by EPs with a very low incidence of clinically significant discrepancies when compared to the radiologist interpretation. Due to rare though significant discrepancies, radiologist interpretation should be performed when available. Further studies are needed to determine the generalizability of this study to EDs with differing volume, patient population, acuity, and physician training.

Duty of candour: implications for radiologists

This article addresses duty of candour in relation to radiologists. The legislation underpinning duty of candour, definition of terms and the requirements for its application are explained. Consideration is given as to the differences between duty of candour and openness of discussion. The issue of how duty of candour should apply to radiologists (both diagnostic and interventional) is then addressed.

Evaluating the effectiveness of intensive versus non-intensive image interpretation education for radiographers: a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this randomised controlled trial was to compare the effectiveness of intensive and non-intensive formats of delivery of image interpretation education for radiographers.

METHODS

A multi-centre, stratified (by years of experience) two group parallel arm, single blind, randomised controlled trial was conducted. Participants (n = 48) were allocated to one of two groups to receive image interpretation education: (1) intensive format (13.5 h over two consecutive days) (2) non-intensive (sequential 90-min tutorials delivered 1 week apart). Participants undertook x-ray interpretation tests before education, at 1-week post-education completion and at 12-week post-education completion.

RESULTS

Image interpretation performance was not significantly different between groups at baseline. A generalised linear model indicated that participants who received intensive education format improved image interpretation performance by a greater margin than the group that received non-intensive education at 1-week (P = 0.002) and 12-week (P < 0.001) follow-up assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both formats of education delivery may be beneficial, the findings of this study have indicated that the intensive format of delivery was more effective at improving radiographers' ability to interpret trauma radiographs in the weeks after completion of the image interpretation program.

Chest X-ray Interpretation by Radiographers Is Not Inferior to Radiologists: A Multireader, Multicase Comparison Using JAFROC (Jack-knife Alternative Free-response Receiver Operating Characteristics) Analysis

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Chest X-rays (CXR) are one of the most frequently requested imaging examinations and are fundamental to many patient pathways. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of CXR interpretation by reporting radiographers (technologists).

METHODS

A cohort of consultant radiologists (n = 10) and reporting radiographers (technologists; n = 11) interpreted a bank (n = 106) of adult CXRs that contained a range of pathologies. Jack-knife alternate free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) methodology was used to determine the performance of the observers (JAFROC v4.2). A noninferiority approach was used, with a predefined margin of clinical insignificance of 10% of average consultant radiologist diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy of the reporting radiographers (figure of merit = 0.828, 95% confidence interval 0.808-0.847) was noninferior to the consultant radiologists (figure of merit = 0.788, 95% confidence interval 0.766-0.811), P < .0001.

CONCLUSIONS

With appropriate postgraduate education, reporting radiographers are able to interpret CXRs at a level comparable to consultant radiologists.

Error in radiology-where are we now?

Error is inherent in radiological practice. Our awareness of the extent of this and the reasons behind it has increased in recent times. Our next step must be the development of a shared understanding with our patients of the limitations as well as the huge benefits of medical imaging.

The Effectiveness of Full-body EOS Compared With Conventional Chest X-ray in Preoperative Evaluation of the Chest for Patients Undergoing Spine Operations: A Preliminary Study

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective radiographic comparative study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare full-body EOS with conventional chest X-ray (CXR) for use in the preoperative evaluation of the chest in patients undergoing spine operations.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The full-body EOS reproduces an image of the chest similar to a routine CXR. The potential for the former replacing the latter is plausible. This is especially applicable in spine patients who would routinely have a preoperative full-body EOS performed.

METHODS

A radiographic comparative study of 266 patients was conducted at a single tertiary center from January 2013 to July 2016. Each patient had EOS and CXR done in random order <2 weeks apart. Two radiologists reported the image findings using a checklist. A third radiologist was consulted in cases of discrepancy. Interobserver agreement was calculated using Gwet AC1 and a comparison between EOS and CXR findings was analyzed using paired Chi-squared test. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors for abnormal radiological findings. The institutional ethics committee approved this prospective study and waiver of informed consent was obtained.

RESULTS

There were 84 males (31.6%) and 182 females (68.4%). The mean age was 38.9 years (SD = 25.0 years). High interobserver agreement was found for EOS and CXR (Gwet AC1 0.993 and 0.988, respectively). There were no significant differences between both imaging modalities. Rare diagnoses precluded comparison of certain conditions. Age >18 years [odds ratio (OR) 7.69; P = 0.009] and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 3 (OR 6.64; P = 0.018) were independent predictors of abnormal radiological findings.

CONCLUSION

EOS is not inferior to, and may be used to replace CXR in preoperative radiological screening of thoracic conditions especially in low-risk patients ≤18 years old and patients with ASA <3. Preoperative assessment should never rely on a single modality. High-risk patients should be sent for a thorough work-up before spine surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review

Objectives

Double reading in diagnostic radiology can find discrepancies in the original report, but a systematic program of double reading is resource consuming. There are conflicting opinions on the value of double reading. The purpose of the current study was to perform a systematic review on the value of double reading.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to find studies calculating the rate of misses and overcalls with the aim of establishing the added value of double reading by human observers.

Results

The literature search resulted in 1610 hits. After abstract and full-text reading, 46 articles were selected for analysis. The rate of discrepancy varied from 0.4 to 22% depending on study setting. Double reading by a sub-specialist, in general, led to high rates of changed reports.

Conclusions

The systematic review found rather low discrepancy rates. The benefit of double reading must be balanced by the considerable number of working hours a systematic double-reading scheme requires. A more profitable scheme might be to use systematic double reading for selected, high-risk examination types. A second conclusion is that there seems to be a value of sub-specialisation for increased report quality. A consequent implementation of this would have far-reaching organisational effects.

Key Points

• In double reading, two or more radiologists read the same images.

• A systematic literature review was performed.

• The discrepancy rates varied from 0.4 to 22% in various studies.

• Double reading by sub-specialists found high discrepancy rates.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s13244-018-0599-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

Evaluating the effectiveness of intensive versus non-intensive image interpretation education for radiographers: a randomised control trial study protocol

Radiographer commenting systems have not been successfully implemented in many Australian hospitals, despite evidence of their benefit and adoption elsewhere, such as the United Kingdom. An important contributor to the lack of widespread adoption of radiographer commenting in Australia (and likely elsewhere) is the limited availability of accessible education options for radiographers. The purpose of this randomised controlled trial is to compare the effectiveness of the same image interpretation education program delivered over an intensive 2-day period (intensive format) versus a series of shorter regular workshops (non-intensive format). The study design is a multicentre, stratified (by years of experience) two group parallel-arm single-blind (assessor blinded) randomised controlled trial. Participants will be allocated to one of the two groups: (1) intensive format of education or (2) non-intensive format of education in a 1:1 ratio. Participants will undergo assessments before education, at 1 week post-intervention completion and at 12 weeks post-intervention completion. Findings from this trial will be of relevance to radiographers seeking image interpretation training as well as organisations providing image interpretation education to prepare clinical staff for participation in a radiographer commenting system. A limitation of the trial is that the sample will be inclusive of radiographers, and findings may not be able to be directly extrapolated to other clinical disciplines (e.g. junior doctors, physiotherapists or nurse practitioners).

Differences between orthopaedic evaluation and radiological reports of conventional radiographs in patients with minor trauma admitted to the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

During night and on weekends, in our emergency department there is no radiologist on duty or on call: thus, X-ray examinations (XR) are evaluated by the orthopaedic surgeon on duty and reported the following morning/monday by radiologists. The aim of our study was to examine the discrepancy rate between orthopaedists and radiologists in the interpretation of imaging examinations performed on patients in our tertiary level orthopaedic institution and the consequences of delayed diagnosis in terms of patient management and therapeutic strategy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all cases of discrepancy between orthopaedists and radiologists, which were categorized according to anatomical location of injury, initial diagnosis and treatment, change in diagnosis and treatment. We used the Chi square test to compare the frequencies of discrepancies between patients ≤14 and >14years of age.

RESULTS

From January to December 2016, 19,512 patients admitted to our emergency department performed at least an imaging examination; among these patients, 13,561 underwent XR in absence of an attending radiologist. A discrepant diagnosis was found in 337/13,561 (2.5%; 184 males; mean age: 36.7±23.7, range 2-95); 151/337 (45%) discrepancies were encountered in the lower limbs, with ankle being the most common site of misdiagnosis (64/151), and 103/337 (30%) in the upper limbs, with the elbow being the most frequent site in this district (35/103). We found 293/337 false negatives (87%) and 44/337 false positives (13%), with 134 and 13 patients needing treatment change, respectively. We found 85/337 discrepancies (25%) in patients ≤14 years of age, and 252/337 (75%) in those >14years. The distribution of discrepancies per anatomic district was significantly different (P<0.001) in these two groups of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A low rate of discrepancy between orthopaedists and radiologists in evaluating images of patients admitted to our emergency department was found, although treatment change occurred in about half of cases. A thorough and accurate clinical evaluation is crucial to provide a correct treatment and prognosis.

Radiologic head CT interpretation errors in pediatric abusive and non-abusive head trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Pediatric head trauma, including abusive head trauma, is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this research was to identify and evaluate radiologic interpretation errors of head CTs performed on abusive and non-abusive pediatric head trauma patients from a community setting referred for a secondary interpretation at a tertiary pediatric hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective search identified 184 patients <5 years of age with head CT for known or potential head trauma who had a primary interpretation performed at a referring community hospital by a board-certified radiologist. Two board-certified fellowship-trained neuroradiologists at an academic pediatric hospital independently interpreted the head CTs, compared their interpretations to determine inter-reader discrepancy rates, and resolved discrepancies to establish a consensus second interpretation. The primary interpretation was compared to the consensus second interpretation using the RADPEER™ scoring system to determine the primary interpretation-second interpretation overall and major discrepancy rates. MRI and/or surgical findings were used to validate the primary interpretation or second interpretation when possible. The diagnosis of abusive head trauma was made using clinical and imaging data by a child abuse specialist to separate patients into abusive head trauma and non-abusive head trauma groups. Discrepancy rates were compared for both groups. Lastly, primary interpretations and second interpretations were evaluated for discussion of imaging findings concerning for abusive head trauma.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences between primary interpretation-second interpretation versus inter-reader overall and major discrepancy rates (28% vs. 6%, P=0.0001; 16% vs. 1%, P=0.0001). There were significant differences in the primary interpretation-second interpretation overall and major discrepancy rates for abusive head trauma patients compared to non-abusive head trauma patients (41% vs 23%, P=0.02; 26% vs. 12%, P=0.03). The most common findings resulting in major radiologic interpretation errors were fractures and subdural hemorrhage. Differences in the age of the patient and the percentage of patients with hemorrhage were statistically significant between the abusive head trauma versus non-abusive head trauma groups, while no statistical difference was identified for skull fractures, ischemia, head CT radiation dose, or presence of multiplanar or 3-D reformatted images. The second interpretation more frequently indicated potential for abusive head trauma compared to the primary interpretation (P=0.0001). MRI and/or surgical findings were in agreement with the second interpretation in 29/29 (100%) of patients with discrepancies.

CONCLUSION

A high incidence of radiologic interpretation errors may occur in pediatric trauma patients at risk for abusive head trauma who are referred from a community hospital. This suggests value for second interpretations of head CTs at a tertiary pediatric hospital for this patient population.

Sensitivity, specificity, and interobserver variability of survey thoracic radiography for the detection of heart base masses in dogs

OBJECTIVE To determine the sensitivity, specificity, and interobserver variability of survey thoracic radiography (STR) for the detection of heart base masses (HBMs) in dogs. DESIGN Retrospective case-control study. ANIMALS 30 dogs with an HBM and 120 breed-matched control dogs (60 healthy dogs and 60 dogs with heart disease and no HBM). PROCEDURES In a blinded manner, 2 observers (designated as A and B) evaluated STR views from each dog for a mass-like opacity cranial to the heart, tracheal deviation, cardiomegaly, findings suggestive of pericardial effusion or right-sided congestive heart failure, and soft tissue opacities suggestive of pulmonary metastases. Investigators subsequently provided a final interpretation of each dog's HBM status (definitely affected, equivocal, or definitely not affected). RESULTS Considering equivocal interpretation as negative or positive for an HBM, the sensitivity of STR for diagnosis of an HBM was 40.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.5% to 57.5%) and 56.7% (95% CI, 38.9% to 74.4%), respectively, for observer A and 63% (95% CI, 46.1% to 80.6%) and 80.0% (95% CI, 65.7% to 94.3%), respectively, for observer B. The corresponding specificity was 96.7% (95% CI, 93.5% to 99.9%) and 92.5% (95% CI, 87.8% to 97.2%), respectively, for observer A and 99.2% (95% CI, 97.5% to 100%) and 92.5% (95% CI, 87.8% to 97.2%), respectively, for observer B. The presence of a mass-like opacity cranial to the heart or tracheal deviation, or both, was significantly associated with a true diagnosis of HBM. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated that STR is a highly specific but not a highly sensitive predictor of HBM in dogs.

Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable?

Errors and discrepancies in radiology practice are uncomfortably common, with an estimated day-to-day rate of 3-5% of studies reported, and much higher rates reported in many targeted studies. Nonetheless, the meaning of the terms "error" and "discrepancy" and the relationship to medical negligence are frequently misunderstood. This review outlines the incidence of such events, the ways they can be categorized to aid understanding, and potential contributing factors, both human- and system-based. Possible strategies to minimise error are considered, along with the means of dealing with perceived underperformance when it is identified. The inevitability of imperfection is explained, while the importance of striving to minimise such imperfection is emphasised.

TEACHING POINTS

• Discrepancies between radiology reports and subsequent patient outcomes are not inevitably errors. • Radiologist reporting performance cannot be perfect, and some errors are inevitable. • Error or discrepancy in radiology reporting does not equate negligence. • Radiologist errors occur for many reasons, both human- and system-derived. • Strategies exist to minimise error causes and to learn from errors made.

Discrepancy rates in reporting of acute stroke CT

INTRODUCTION

With increasing after-hours workloads there has been reliance on registrars to report after-hours acute stroke CT scans at our institution. This practice was reviewed for the perceived possibility of error and poor patient outcomes by the reliance on after-hours registrar reports. Through an audit of 3 years of these studies, we proposed to investigate if our current practice is safe and whether it results in poor patient outcomes.

METHODS

Following ethics approval, all after-hours acute stroke CT scan reports from September 2012 to August 2015 were identified using the PACS. All reports were reviewed with data recorded on a written worksheet then transferred to an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. The consultant report was used as the gold standard. In cases where discrepancies occurred, medical records were reviewed.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and ninety-four acute stroke CT scans were identified in the audit period with a subset of 316 studies identified where a registrar report was issued at time of scan and checked the following day by a radiology consultant. There were 114 discrepancies (10 were major, 51 were minor, and 53 other). In three discrepancy cases, the patient's clinical course was altered. There were no adverse outcomes as a result of a discrepancy. Using a radiology consultant as the gold standard the major discrepancy rate was ≈3% in the after-hours setting.

CONCLUSION

Our 3 year retrospective audit demonstrates that our practice of registrar report issued at the time of CT scan checked the following day by a radiologist has a low major discrepancy rate and that patient safety was not compromised. These results support the continuation of our current practice.

Opportunities for Targeted Education: Critical Neuroradiologic Findings Missed or Misinterpreted by Residents and Fellows

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed neuroradiology cases in which a resident or fellow missed a significant finding, to identify potential areas of deficiency that could be strengthened through targeted education.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Included in the study were all neuroradiology reports from 2011 through 2013 that were marked with an electronic flag to indicate a significant modification between the preliminary and final versions. The reports were examined to determine whether a critical finding (CF) or a non-CF was missed, with the use of a hospital-approved list of 17 neuroradiology CFs. Results were analyzed for all trainees.

RESULTS

A total of 978 modified reports were found among reports from 225,628 neuroradiology examinations. Of these modified reports, 891 (91.1%) contained an addendum that identified the discrepancy: 658 (73.8%) contained a CF,192 (21.7%) contained a non-CF, and 41 (4.6%) were changed from containing a CF to not containing a CF. A total of 725 missed CFs were found in the 658 modified reports. The CF miss rate for all trainees was 6.0% (95% CI, 5.6-6.4%), whereas that for residents was 8.6% and that for fellows was 4.8%. Residents missed hydrocephalus, intracranial pressure or edema, new hemorrhage, and new infarction more frequently than did fellows. The five most frequently missed CFs were congenital variation, infection, misplaced hardware, a new or enlarging mass, and vascular abnormality.

CONCLUSION

Our trainees' overall CF miss rate was 6.0%. Five CFs had miss rates of approximately 10% or more, and residents missed four of the CFs more frequently than did fellows. With the use of these data, our curriculum could potentially be strengthened and our trainee error rates decreased, leading to improved patient care.

Quality assurance in radiology: peer review and peer feedback

Peer review in radiology means an assessment of the accuracy of a report issued by another radiologist. Inevitably, this involves a judgement opinion from the reviewing radiologist. Peer feedback is the means by which any form of peer review is communicated back to the original author of the report. This article defines terms, discusses the current status, identifies problems, and provides some recommendations as to the way forward, concentrating upon the software requirements for efficient peer review and peer feedback of reported imaging studies. Radiologists undertake routine peer review in their everyday clinical practice, particularly when reporting and preparing for multidisciplinary team meetings. More formal peer review of reported imaging studies has been advocated as a quality assurance measure to promote good clinical practice. It is also a way of assessing the competency of reporting radiologists referred for investigation to bodies such as the General Medical Council (GMC). The literature shows, firstly, that there is a very wide reported range of discrepancy rates in many studies, which have used a variety of non-comparable methodologies; and secondly, that applying scoring systems in formal peer review is often meaningless, unhelpful, and can even be detrimental. There is currently a lack of electronic peer feedback system software on the market to inform radiologists of any review of their work that has occurred or to provide them with clinical outcome information on cases they have previously reported. Learning opportunities are therefore missed. Radiologists should actively engage with the medical informatics industry to design optimal peer review and feedback software with features to meet their needs. Such a system should be easy to use, be fully integrated with the radiological information and picture archiving systems used clinically, and contain a free-text comment box, without a numerical scoring system. It should form a temporary record that cannot be permanently archived. It must provide automated feedback to the original author. Peer feedback, as part of everyday reporting, should enhance daily learning for radiologists. Software requirements for everyday peer feedback differ from those needed for a formal peer review process, which might only be necessary in the setting of a formal GMC enquiry into a particular radiologist's reporting competence, for example.

Risk management in radiology departments

Medical imaging and interventional radiology sustained prompt changes in the last few years, mainly as a result of technology breakthroughs, rise in workload, deficit in workforce and globalization. Risk is considered to be the chance or possibility of incurring loss or of a negative event happening that may cause injury to patients or medical practitioners. There are various causes of risks leading to harm and injury in radiology departments, and it is one of the objectives of this paper to scrutinize some of the causes. This will drive to consideration of some of the approaches that are used in managing risks in radiology. This paper aims at investigating risk management in radiology, and this will be achieved through a thorough assessment of the risk control measures that are used in the radiology department. It has been observed that the major focus of risk management in such medical setting is to reduce and eliminate harm and injury to patients through integration of various medical precautions. The field of Radiology is rapidly evolving due to technology advances and the globalization of healthcare. This ongoing development will have a great impact on the level of quality of care and service delivery. Thus, risk management in radiology is essential in protecting the patients, radiologists, and the medical organization in terms of capital and widening of the reputation of the medical organization with the patients.

Radiographers' performance in chest X-ray interpretation: the Nigerian experience

OBJECTIVE

To assess the performance of Nigerian radiographers in interpretation of plain chest radiographs and to assess whether age, years since qualification and sector of practice are associated with performance.

METHODS

A test set of 50 radiographs containing 23 cases with no pathology (normal) and 27 abnormal cases (cardiopulmonary conditions) independently confirmed by 3 radiologists were presented to 51 radiographers in a random order. Readers independently evaluated radiographs for absence or presence of disease and stated the location, radiographic features and diagnosis. Readers self-reported their age, years since qualification and sector of practice. Receiver operating characteristic was used to assess the performance. Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess whether age, years since qualification and sector of practice were associated with performance.

RESULTS

Mean location sensitivity was 88.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.787-0.980]. Mean sensitivity and specificity were 76.9 (95% CI, 0.658-0.864) and 79.8 (95% CI, 0.658-0.864), respectively. Age was not associated with performance (p = 0.07). Number of years qualified as radiographer (p = 0.005) and private practice (p = 0.004) were positively associated with performance.

CONCLUSION

Nigerian radiographers can correctly report chest radiographs to a reasonable standard, and performance is associated with number of years since qualification and the sector of practice.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

There are less than 300 radiologists serving a Nigerian population of about 170 million; therefore, X-ray interpretation by radiographers deserves consideration. Nigerian radiographers have potential to interpret chest X-ray in the clinical setting, and this may significantly improve radiology service delivery in this region.

The posterior impingement view: an alternative conventional projection to detect bony posterior ankle impingement

PURPOSE

The purpose of the current study was to clinically evaluate the diagnostic value of the new posterior impingement (PIM) view in the detection of an os trigonum, compared with the standard lateral view, using computed tomography (CT) as a reference standard.

METHODS

Three observers, 2 experienced (orthopaedic surgeon and radiologist) and one inexperienced (resident), independently scored 142 radiographic images for the presence of an os trigonum. The diagnostic performance was assessed using the computed tomographic scan as the reference standard. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value (PPV), and negative predicted value (NPV) were calculated.

RESULTS

The PIM view had significantly superior accuracy compared with the lateral view for each observer: orthopaedic surgeon, PIM view = 90 versus lateral view = 75 (P = .013); radiologist, PIM view = 80 versus lateral view = 64 (P = .019); resident, PIM view = 90 versus lateral view = 79 (P = .039). The mean sensitivity and specificity of the lateral view for all observers was 50% and 81%, respectively. For the PIM view, this was 78% and 89%, respectively. The PPV was 50% for the lateral view and 70% for the PIM view. The NPV was 84% for the lateral view and 93% for the PIM view.

CONCLUSIONS

The PIM view has significantly superior diagnostic accuracy compared with the conventional lateral view in the detection of an os trigonum. In cases of symptomatic posterior ankle impingement, we advise that a PIM view be used instead of or in addition to the standard lateral view for detection of posterior talar pathologic conditions. LEVEL OF 

EVIDENCE

Level II, development of diagnostic criteria on basis of consecutive patients with universally applied reference gold standard.

Delays and errors in abnormal chest radiograph follow-up: a systems approach to promoting patient safety in radiology

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to apply the 'systems approach' to patient safety in order to identify causes for delays and errors in lung cancer diagnoses following an abnormal chest radiograph.

METHODS

In the first part of this study, the systems approach to patient safety was comprehensively reviewed by three radiologists and seven patient safety experts. In the second part of this study, a retrospective review was performed of all patients referred to the lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting over a 1-year period. All abnormal chest radiograph reports were examined and a root-cause analysis performed of cases where errors and delays in diagnoses were deemed to have occurred.

RESULTS

A total of 124 cases were reviewed, of which 36 (29%) patients had an abnormal preceding chest radiograph prior to MDT referral. In six cases, serious errors from delay and lack of follow-up were identified. These are analysed and discussed in detail in this article. Application of the systems approach to each case identified poor communication and lack of clinical action as prime causes.

CONCLUSIONS

Both reporting radiologists and referring clinicians have a responsibility to ensure appropriate action following an abnormal chest radiograph. The main error lies in communication between the referring clinicians and the radiologists. Direct electronic communication is potentially a more robust method to overcome this.

Interobserver agreement in the interpretation of outpatient head CT scans in an academic neuroradiology practice

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The repeatability of head CT interpretations may be studied in different contexts: in peer-review quality assurance interventions or in interobserver agreement studies. We assessed the agreement between double-blind reports of outpatient CT scans in a routine academic practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Outpatient head CT scans (119 patients) were randomly selected to be read twice in a blinded fashion by 8 neuroradiologists practicing in an academic institution during 1 year. Nonstandardized reports were analyzed to extract 4 items (answer to the clinical question, major findings, incidental findings, recommendations for further investigations) from each report, to identify agreement or discrepancies (classified as class 2 [mentioned or not mentioned or contradictions between reports], class 1 [mentioned in both reports but diverging in location or severity], 0 [concordant], or not applicable), according to a standardized data-extraction form. Agreement regarding the presence or absence of clinically significant or incidental findings was studied with κ statistics.

RESULTS

The interobserver agreement regarding head CT studies with positive and negative results for clinically pertinent findings was 0.86 (0.77-0.95), but concordance was only 75.6% (67.2%-82.5%). Class 2 discrepancy was found in 15.1%; class 1 discrepancy, in 9.2% of cases. The κ value for reporting incidental findings was 0.59 (0.45-0.74), with class 2 discrepancy in 29.4% of cases. Most discrepancies did not impact the clinical management of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Discrepancies in double-blind interpretations of head CT examinations were more common than reported in peer-review quality assurance programs.