Predictors of radiologists' perceived risk of malpractice lawsuits in breast imaging

Identifying validity evidence for uncertainty tolerance scales: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Uncertainty tolerance (UT) is increasingly valued as a medical graduate attribute and broadly measured among medical student populations. However, the validity evidence underpinning UT scale implementation has not been summarised across studies. The present work evaluates UT scale validity evidence to better inform when, why and how UT scales ought to be used and to identify remaining validity evidence gaps.

METHODS

A literature search for psychometric studies of UT scales was completed in 2022. Records were included if they implemented one of the four most cited UT scales (i.e. Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty scale 1990 [PRU1990] or 1995 [PRU1995], Tolerance for Ambiguity [TFA] scale or Tolerance of Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors scale [TAMSAD]) in a population of physicians and/or medial students and presented validity evidence according to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing framework. Included studies were rated and analysed according to evidence for test content, response processes, internal structure, relations to other variables and consequences of testing.

RESULTS

Among the investigated scales, 'relations to other variables' and 'internal structure' were the most commonly reported forms of validity evidence. No evidence of 'response processes' or 'consequences of testing' was identified. Overall, the PRU1990 and PRU1995 demonstrated the strongest validity evidence, although evidence primarily related to physician populations.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the studied scales demonstrated evidence for all five sources of validity. Future research would benefit from assessing validity evidence for 'response processes' and 'consequences of testing' among physicians and medical students at different training/career stages to better understand UT construct conceptualisation in these populations. Until further and stronger validity evidence for UT scales is established, we caution against implementing UT scales outside of research settings (e.g. for higher stakes decision making).

Divergent Interpretations of Imaging After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Conflicting information from health care providers contributes to anxiety among cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate discordant interpretations of follow-up imaging studies after lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) between radiologists and radiation oncologists.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients treated with SBRT for stage I non-small cell lung cancer from 2007 to 2018 at Duke University Medical Center were included. Radiology interpretations of follow-up computed tomography (CT) chest or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scans and the corresponding radiation oncology interpretations in follow-up notes from the medical record were assessed. Based on language used, interpretations were scored as concerning for progression (Progression), neutral differential listed (Neutral Differential), or favor stability/postradiation changes (Stable). Neutral Differential required that malignancy was specifically listed as a possibility in the differential. Encounters were categorized as discordant when either radiology or radiation oncology interpreted the surveillance imaging as Progression when the other interpreted the imaging study as Stable or Neutral Differential. The incidence of discordant interpretations was the primary endpoint of the study.

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2018, 139 patients were treated with SBRT and had available follow-up CT or PET-CT imaging for the analysis. Median follow-up was 61 months and the median number of follow-up encounters per patient was 3. Of 534 encounters evaluated, 25 (4.7%) had overtly discordant interpretations of imaging studies. This most commonly arose when radiology felt the imaging study showed Progression but radiation oncology favored Stable or Neutral Differential (24/25, 96%). No patient or treatment variables were found to be significantly associated with discordant interpretations on univariate analysis including type of scan (CT 22/489, 4.5%; PET-CT 3/45, 7%; P = .46).

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance imaging after lung SBRT is often interpreted differently by radiologists and radiation oncologists, but overt discordance was relatively low at our institution. Providers should be aware of differences in interpretation patterns that may contribute to increased patient distress.

Managing Challenging Patient Interactions in Breast Imaging

Managing challenging patient interactions can be a daily stressor for breast imaging radiologists, leading to burnout. This article offers communication and behavioral practices for radiologists that help reduce radiologists' stress during these encounters. Patient scenarios viewed as difficult can vary among radiologists. Radiologists' awareness of their own physical, mental, and emotional states, along with skillful communications, can be cultivated to navigate these interactions and enhance resiliency. Understanding underlying causes of patients' emotional reactions, denial, and anger helps foster empathy and compassion during discussions. When exposed to extremely disruptive, angry, or racially abusive patients, having pre-existing institutional policies to address these behaviors helps direct appropriate responses and guide subsequent actions. These extreme behaviors may catch breast imaging radiologists off guard yet have potentially significant consequences. Rehearsing scripted responses before encounters can help breast imaging radiologists maintain composure in the moment, responding in a calm, nonjudgmental manner, and most effectively contributing to service recovery. However, when challenging patient encounters do trigger difficult emotions in breast imaging radiologists, debriefing with colleagues afterwards and naming the emotion can help the radiologists process their feelings to regain focus for performing clinical duties.

Peer learning in breast imaging

With the increasing focus on quality and safety in medicine, radiology practices are increasingly transitioning from traditional score-based peer review to peer learning. Participation in a peer learning program can increase learning, practice improvement, and cultivation of interpersonal relationships in a non-punitive environment. As breast imaging errors are the most cited in medical malpractice cases, learning and attention to and reduction of these errors in breast imaging are especially important. We describe the strengths of a peer learning program, implementation process in a breast imaging program, challenges to overcome, and strategies to support success.

Factors Influencing Trainees' Interest in Breast Imaging

Purpose: To gauge the level of interest in breast imaging (BI) and determine factors impacting trainees' decision to pursue this subspecialty. Methods: Canadian radiology residents and medical students were surveyed from November 2020 to February 2021. Training level, actual vs preferred timing of breast rotations, fellowship choices, perceptions of BI, and how artificial intelligence (AI) will impact BI were collected. Chi-square, Fisher's exact tests and univariate logistic regression were performed to determine the impact of trainees' perceptions on interest in pursuing BI/women's imaging (WI) fellowships. Results: 157 responses from 80 radiology residents and 77 medical students were collected. The top 3 fellowship subspecialties desired by residents were BI/WI (36%), abdominal imaging (35%), and interventional radiology (25%). Twenty-five percent of the medical students were unsure due to lack of exposure. The most common reason that trainees found BI unappealing was repetitiveness (20%), which was associated with lack of interest in BI/WI fellowships (OR = 3.9, 95% CI: 1.6-9.5, P = .002). The most common reason residents found BI appealing was procedures (59%), which was associated with interest in BI/WI fellowships (OR, 3.2, 95% CI, 1.2-8.6, P = .02). Forty percent of residents reported an earlier start of their first breast rotation (PGY1-2) would affect their fellowship choice. Conclusion: This study assessed the current level of Canadian trainees' interest in BI and identified factors that influenced their decisions to pursue BI. Solutions for increased interest include earlier exposure to breast radiology and addressing inadequacies in residency training.

What Causes the Most Stress in Breast Radiology Practice? A Survey of Members of the Society of Breast Imaging

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine the major stressors affecting practicing breast radiologists.

METHODS

All members of the Society of Breast Imaging within the United States received an email invitation to complete an anonymous survey evaluating stressors that may contribute to physician burnout. Stressors evaluated included pace at work, work-life balance, care of dependents, job security, financial strain, decreasing reimbursement, new regulations, delivering bad news, fear of getting sued, and dealing with difficult patients, radiologists, and administrators.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 13.5% (312/2308). For those who opened the email, response rate was 24.6% (312/1269). The most prevalent stressors reported were working too fast (222/312, 71.2%), balancing demands of work with personal life (209/312, 70.0%), fear of getting sued (164/312, 52.6%), and dealing with difficult administrators (156/312, 50%). Prevalence of stress related to new regulation requirements, job security, financial strain, decreased reimbursement, dependent care, call, delivering bad news, and dealing with difficult patients, difficult referrers, and difficult radiologists were present in fewer than 50% of respondents.

CONCLUSION

The most prevalent sources of stress in breast imaging radiologists relate to working too fast and balancing demands of work with time needed for personal life.

Spanish radiology residents' views on breast imaging

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate radiology residents' opinions about breast imaging and the possibility of choosing this subspecialty after completing their residency.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We elaborated a 15-question survey aimed at radiology residents in Spain. The survey was approved by the Spanish Society of Breast Imaging (SEDIM) and the Spanish Society of Medical Radiology (SERAM), and it was disseminated by the SERAM through links to Google Forms via social networks and emails. Responses sent between February 21, 2020 and July 31, 2020 were accepted.

RESULTS

A total of 72 residents responded to the survey (7.83% response rate); 69.44% of these were third- or fourth-year residents. Of the respondents, 73.61% knew about the SEDIM, and 18.06% knew about the European Society of Breast Imaging. The duration of training programs was three months for 70.83% of respondents. In 7.84% of the responses, residents stated that their supervision was less than 50%, and 70.59% of the residents stated that the rotation exceeded their expectations. One-third of the respondents would consider a fellowship in breast imaging. In all hospitals, residents did diagnostic mammography and breast ultrasound; not all did interventional procedures. Aspects of breast imaging that were rated negatively included the lack of CT studies and the possible legal repercussions of errors. Aspects that were rated positively were dynamics, interventionism, and the role of the radiologist in the process of care for patients with breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Most residents considered that their rotations in breast imaging exceeded their expectations; however, only a small percentage of residents would consider specializing in the field.

Tolerance of uncertainty: A systematic review of health and healthcare-related outcomes

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty tolerance (UT) is thought to be a characteristic of individuals that influences various outcomes related to health, healthcare, and healthcare education. We undertook a systematic literature review to evaluate the state of the evidence on UT and its relationship to these outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted electronic and bibliographic searches to identify relevant studies examining associations between UT and health, healthcare, or healthcare education outcomes. We used standardized tools to assess methodological quality and analyzed the major findings of existing studies, which we organized and classified by theme.

RESULTS

Searches yielded 542 potentially relevant articles, of which 67 met inclusion criteria. Existing studies were heterogeneous in focus, setting, and measurement approach, were largely cross-sectional in design, and overall methodological quality was low. UT was associated with various trainee-centered, provider-centered, and patient-centered outcomes which were cognitive, emotional, and behavioral in nature. UT was most consistently associated with emotional well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty tolerance is associated with several important trainee-, provider-, and patient-centered outcomes in healthcare and healthcare education. However, low methodological quality, study design limitations, and heterogeneity in the measurement of UT limit strong inferences about its effects, and addressing these problems is a critical need for future research.

The determinants of defensive medicine practices in Belgium

In 2010 the Belgian government introduced a low cost administrative procedure for compensating medical injuries to overcome the major shortcomings of the existing tort system. This paper examines, for the first time, to what extent this reform had an impact on physician specialists' defensive practices and what are the relevant determinants affecting physicians' clinical decision making. Based on a survey of 508 physicians, we find evidence of a relatively modest increase in defensive practices among physicians in various specialties. In general, 14% of the respondents, who were aware of the reform, reported to have increased their overall defensive behaviour, while respectively 18 and 13% altered their assurance and avoidance behaviour. Commonly used physician characteristics, such as claims experience and gender, have a similar impact on defensive medicine as documented in existing literature. Furthermore, the determinant physician's access to an incident reporting system is found to have a significant impact on most of the defensive medicine measures. Health care institutions may therefore play an important role in controlling and reducing physicians' defensive practices.

Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

The practice of investigating pathological abnormalities in the breasts of females who are asymptomatic is primarily employed using X-ray mammography. The importance of breast screening is reflected in the mortality-based benefits observed among females who are found to possess invasive breast carcinoma prior to the manifestation of clinical symptoms. It is estimated that population-based screening constitutes a 17% reduction in the breast cancer mortality rate among females affected by invasive breast carcinoma. In spite of the significant utility that screening confers in those affected by invasive cancer, limitations associated with screening manifest as potential harms affecting individuals who are free of invasive disease. Disease-free and benign tumour-bearing individuals who are subjected to diagnostic work-up following a screening examination constitute a population of cases referred to as false positives (FPs). This article discusses factors contributing to the FP rate in mammography and extends the discussion to an assessment of the consequences associated with FP reporting. We conclude that the mammography FP rate in North America is in excess based upon the observation of overtreatment of in situ lesions and the disproportionate distribution of detriment and benefit among the population of individuals recalled for diagnostic work-up subsequent to screening. To address the excessive incidence of FPs in mammography, we investigate solutions that may be employed to remediate the current status of the FP rate. Subsequently, it can be suggested that improvements in the breast-screening protocol, medical litigation risk, image interpretation software and the implementation of image acquisition modalities that overcome superimposition effects are promising solutions.

Disclosure of adverse events and errors in surgical care: challenges and strategies for improvement

The disclosure of adverse events to patients, including those caused by medical errors, is a critical part of patient-centered healthcare and a fundamental component of patient safety and quality improvement. Disclosure benefits patients, providers, and healthcare institutions. However, the act of disclosure can be difficult for physicians. Surgeons struggle with disclosure in unique ways compared with other specialties, and disclosure in the surgical setting has specific challenges. The frequency of surgical adverse events along with a dysfunctional tort system, the team structure of surgical staff, and obstacles created inadvertently by existing surgical patient safety initiatives may contribute to an environment not conducive to disclosure. Fortunately, there are multiple strategies to address these barriers. Participation in communication and resolution programs, integration of Just Culture principles, surgical team disclosure planning, refinement of informed consent and morbidity and mortality processes, surgery-specific professional standards, and understanding the complexities of disclosing other clinicians' errors all have the potential to help surgeons provide patients with complete, satisfactory disclosures. Improvement in the regularity and quality of disclosures after surgical adverse events and errors will be key as the field of patient safety continues to advance.

Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark

INTRODUCTION

In the United States (US), about one-half of women screened with annual mammography have at least one false-positive test after ten screens. The estimate for European women screened ten times biennially is much lower. We evaluate to what extent screening interval, mammogram type, and statistical methods, can explain the reported differences.

METHODS

We included all screens from women first screened at age 50-69 years in the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) (n=99,455) between 1996-2010, and from two population-based mammography screening programs in Denmark (n=230,452 and n=400,204), between 1991-2012 and 1993-2013, respectively. Model-based cumulative false-positive risks were computed for the entire sample, using two statistical methods (Hubbard Njor) previously used to estimate false-positive risks in the US and Europe.

RESULTS

Empirical cumulative risk of at least one false-positive test after eight (annual or biennial) screens was 41.9% in BCSC, 16.1% in Copenhagen, and 7.4% in Funen. Variation in screening interval and mammogram type did not explain the differences by country. Using the Hubbard method, the model-based cumulative risks after eight screens was 45.1% in BCSC, 9.6% in Copenhagen, and 8.8% in Funen. Using the Njor method, these risks were estimated to be 43.6, 10.9 and 8.0%.

CONCLUSION

Choice of statistical method, screening interval and mammogram type does not explain the substantial differences in cumulative false-positive risk between the US and Europe.

The cumulative risk of false-positive results in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: updated results

BACKGROUND

Some false-positive results are inevitable in mammographic screening, but the impact of false-positive findings on the program and the participants is a disadvantage of screening. The objective of the current study was to estimate the cumulative risk of a false-positive result over 10 biennial screening examinations and the cumulative risk of undergoing an invasive procedure with a benign outcome in women screened between the ages of 50 years to 69 years.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed in 231,310 women aged 50 years to 51 years at the time of first mammography screening who underwent 715,311 screening mammograms in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program from 1996 through 2010. Generalized linear mixed models were used to estimate the probability of a false-positive screening result and to compute the cumulative false-positive risk for up to 10 biennial screening examinations.

RESULTS

The cumulative false-positive risk after 20 years of biennial screening for women who initiated screening aged 50 years to 51 years was 20.0% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 19.7%-20.4%). The cumulative risk of undergoing an invasive procedure with a benign outcome for the same group of women was 4.1% (95% CI, 3.9%-4.3%). The cumulative risk of undergoing a fine-needle aspiration cytology, core needle biopsy, or open biopsy with a benign outcome was 1.4% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.5%), 2.0% (95% CI, 1.9%-2.1%), and 0.16% (95% CI, 0.13%-0.19%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

One in every 5 women will be recalled for further assessment with a negative outcome if they attend biennial mammographic screening between ages 50 years to 69 years. The risk of an invasive procedure with a benign outcome is approximately 4%. It is important to communicate the existence and extent of this risk to the target group and to reduce to a minimum the waiting times between screening and further assessment.

Breast cancer screening: evidence of benefit depends on the method used

In this article, we discuss the most common epidemiological methods used for evaluating the ability of mammography screening to decrease the risk of breast cancer death in general populations (effectiveness). Case-control studies usually find substantial effectiveness. However when breast cancer mortality decreases for reasons unrelated to screening, the case-control design may attribute to screening mortality reductions due to other causes. Studies based on incidence-based mortality have obtained contrasted results compatible with modest to considerable effectiveness, probably because of differences in study design and statistical analysis. In areas where screening has been widespread for a long time, the incidence of advanced breast cancer should be decreasing, which in turn would translate into reduced mortality. However, no or modest declines in the incidence of advanced breast cancer has been observed in these areas. Breast cancer mortality should decrease more rapidly in areas with early introduction of screening than in areas with late introduction of screening. Nonetheless, no difference in breast mortality trends has been observed between areas with early or late screening start. When effectiveness is assessed using incidence-based mortality studies, or the monitoring of advanced cancer incidence, or trends in mortality, the ecological bias is an inherent limitation that is not easy to control. Minimization of this bias requires data over long periods of time, careful selection of populations being compared and availability of data on major confounding factors. If case-control studies seem apparently more adequate for evaluating screening effectiveness, this design has its own limitations and results must be viewed with caution.See related Opinion article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/106 and Commentary http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/164.

Advanced imaging modalities in early stage breast cancer: preoperative use in the United States Medicare population

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for breast cancer staging exist, but adherence remains unknown. This study evaluates patterns of imaging in early stage breast cancer usually reserved for advanced disease.

METHODS

Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results data linked to Medicare claims from 1992-2005 were reviewed for stage I/II breast cancer patients. Claims were searched for preoperative performance of computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), bone scans, and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) ("advanced imaging").

RESULTS

There were 67,874 stage I/II breast cancer patients; 18.8% (n=12,740) had preoperative advanced imaging. The proportion of patients having CT scans, PET scans, and brain MRI increased from 5.7% to 12.4% (P<0.0001), 0.8% to 3.4% (P<0.0001) and 0.2% to 1.1% (P=0.008), respectively, from 1992 to 2005. Bone scans declined from 20.1% to 10.7% (P<0.0001). "Breast cancer" (174.x) was the only diagnosis code associated with 62.1% of PET scans, 37.7% of bone scans, 24.2% of CT, and 5.1% of brain MRI. One or more symptoms or metastatic site was suggested for 19.6% of bone scans, 13.0% of CT, 13.0% of PET, and 6.2% of brain MRI. Factors associated (P<0.05) with use of all modalities were urban setting, breast MRI and ultrasound. Breast MRI was the strongest predictor (P<0.0001) of bone scan (odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44-1.86), Brain MRI (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.15-2.63), CT (OR 2.42, 95% CI 2.12-2.76), and PET (OR 5.71, 95% CI 4.52-7.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Aside from bone scans, performance of advanced imaging is increasing in early stage Medicare breast cancer patients, with limited rationale provided by coded diagnoses. In light of existing guidelines and increasing scrutiny about health care costs, greater reinforcement of current indications is warranted.

Usefulness of presentation of similar images in the diagnosis of breast masses on mammograms: comparison of observer performances in Japan and the USA

Computer-aided diagnosis has potential in improving radiologists' diagnosis, and presentation of similar images as a reference may provide additional useful information for distinction between benign and malignant lesions. In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of presentation of reference images in observer performance studies and compared the results obtained by groups of observers practicing in the United States and Japan. The results showed that the presentation of the reference images was generally effective for both groups, as the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves improved from 0.915 to 0.924 for the group in the US and from 0.913 to 0.925 for the group in Japan, although the differences were marginally (p = 0.047) and not (p = 0.13) statistically significant, respectively. There was a slight difference between the two groups in the way that the observers reacted to some benign cases, which might be due to differences in the population of screenees and in the socio-clinical environment. In the future, it may be worthwhile to investigate the development of a customized system for physicians in different socio-clinical environments.

Feasibility and satisfaction with a tailored web-based audit intervention for recalibrating radiologists' thresholds for conducting additional work-up

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To examine the feasibility of and satisfaction with a tailored web-based intervention designed to decrease radiologists' recommendation of inappropriate additional work-up after a screening mammogram.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a web-based educational intervention designed to reduce inappropriate recall. Radiologists were randomly assigned to participate in an early intervention group or a late (control) intervention group, the latter of which served as a control for a 9-month follow-up period, after which they were invited to participate in the intervention. Intervention content was derived from our prior research and included three modules: 1) an introduction to audit statistics for mammography performance; 2) a review of data showing radiologists' inflated perceptions of medical malpractice risks related to breast imaging, and 3) a review of data on breast cancer risk among women seen in their practices. Embedded within the intervention were individualized audit data for each participating radiologists obtained from the national Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

RESULTS

Seventy-four radiologists (37.8%; 74/196) consented to the intervention, which was completed by 67.5% (27/40) of those randomized to the early intervention group and 41.2% (14/34) of those randomized to the late (control) group. Thus, a total of 41 (55%) completed the intervention. On average, three log-ins were used to complete the program (range 1-14), which took approximately 1 hour. Ninety-five percent found the program moderately to very helpful in understanding how to calculate basic performance measures. Ninety-three percent found viewing their own performance measures moderately to very helpful, and 83% reported it being moderately to very important to learn that the breast cancer risk in their screening population program was lower than perceived. The percentage of radiologists who reported that the risk of medical malpractice influences their recall rates dropped from 36.3% preintervention to 17.8% after intervention with a similar drop in perceived influence of malpractice risk on their recommendations for breast biopsy (36.4 to 17.3%). More than 75% of radiologists answered the postintervention knowledge questions correctly, and the percent of time spent in breast imaging did not appear to influence responses. The majority (>92%) of participants correctly responded that the target recall rate in the United States is 9%. The mean self-reported recall rates were 13.0 for radiologists spending <40% time in breast imaging and 14.9% for those spending >40% time spent in breast imaging, which was highly correlated with their actual recall rates (0.991; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiologists who begin an internet-based tailored intervention designed to help reduce unnecessary recall will likely complete it, although only 55% who consented to the study actually undertook the intervention. Participants found the program useful in helping them understand why their recall rates may be elevated.

Objective determination of standard of care: use of blind readings by external radiologists

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether specific findings determined to be critical and standard of care by expert witnesses in a legal case are identifiable by radiologists blinded to clinical outcome and litigation.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Images from six CT studies were sent to radiologists for interpretation. Two studies were performed for screening after major trauma, one of the cases being the subject of a settled legal action; three were randomly selected from studies performed in the evaluation of emergency department patients; and one was the control. The cases were selected to simulate a typical emergency department caseload. In the medicolegal case, four plaintiff expert witness radiologists had identified three findings in the CT study that were not described by the radiologist of record (primary reader). One of these findings was considered critical and was the basis for the legal case.

RESULTS

Thirty-one radiologists participated in the study. The three findings made by the expert witnesses-T3 and T10 vertebral body fractures and 1-mm symmetric widening of the facet joints at T10-were made by none, 19 (61.3%), and none of the 31 radiologists in this study.

CONCLUSION

Thirty-one radiologists who had no knowledge of the clinical outcome or litigation did not confirm the expert witness interpretation. This finding prompts questions about the current method of determining standard of care in legal cases, that is, use of paid medical expert witnesses. Our findings suggest that use of radiologists blinded to clinical outcome may be a more objective method of evaluating legal cases.

Radiologists' attitudes and use of mammography audit reports

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The US Mammography Quality Standards Act mandates medical audits to track breast cancer outcomes data associated with interpretive performance. The objectives of our study were to assess the content and style of audits and examine use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of the value that radiologists' have regarding mandated medical audits.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Radiologists (n = 364) at mammography registries in seven US states contributing data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) were invited to participate. We examined radiologists' demographic characteristics, clinical experience, use, attitudes, and perceived value of audit reports from results of a self-administered survey. Information on the content and style of BCSC audits provided to radiologists and facilities was obtained from site investigators. Radiologists' characteristics were analyzed according to whether or not they self-reported receiving regular mammography audit reports. Latent class analysis was used to classify radiologists' individual perceptions of audit reports into overall probabilities of having "favorable," "less favorable," "neutral," or "unfavorable" attitudes toward audit reports.

RESULTS

Seventy-one percent (257 of 364) of radiologists completed the survey; two radiologists did not complete the audit survey question, leaving 255 for the final study cohort. Most survey respondents received regular audits (91%), paid close attention to their audit numbers (83%), found the reports valuable (87%), and felt that audit reports prompted them to improve interpretative performance (75%). Variability was noted in the style, target audience, and frequency of reports provided by the BCSC registries. One in four radiologists reported that if Congress mandates more intensive auditing requirements, but does not provide funding to support this regulation they may stop interpreting mammograms.

CONCLUSION

Radiologists working in breast imaging generally had favorable opinions of audit reports, which were mandated by Congress; however, almost 1 in 10 radiologists reported that they did not receive audits.

Disclosing harmful mammography errors to patients

PURPOSE

To assess radiologists' attitudes about disclosing errors to patients by using a survey with a vignette involving an error interpreting a patient's mammogram, leading to a delayed cancer diagnosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted an institutional review board-approved survey of 364 radiologists at seven geographically distinct Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium sites that interpreted mammograms from 2005 to 2006. Radiologists received a vignette in which comparison screening mammograms were placed in the wrong order, leading a radiologist to conclude calcifications were decreasing in number when they were actually increasing, delaying a cancer diagnosis. Radiologists were asked (a) how likely they would be to disclose this error, (b) what information they would share, and (c) their malpractice attitudes and experiences.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-three (67%) of 364 radiologists responded to the disclosure vignette questions. Radiologists' responses to whether they would disclose the error included "definitely not" (9%), "only if asked by the patient" (51%), "probably" (26%), and "definitely" (14%). Regarding information they would disclose, 24% would "not say anything further to the patient," 31% would tell the patient that "the calcifications are larger and are now suspicious for cancer," 30% would state "the calcifications may have increased on your last mammogram, but their appearance was not as worrisome as it is now," and 15% would tell the patient "an error occurred during the interpretation of your last mammogram, and the calcifications had actually increased in number, not decreased." Radiologists' malpractice experiences were not consistently associated with their disclosure responses.

CONCLUSION

Many radiologists report reluctance to disclose a hypothetical mammography error that delayed a cancer diagnosis. Strategies should be developed to increase radiologists' comfort communicating with patients.