RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Quality Control in Neuroradiology: Discrepancies in Image Interpretation among Academic Neuroradiologists
JF American Journal of Neuroradiology
JO Am. J. Neuroradiol.
FD American Society of Neuroradiology
SP 37
OP 42
DO 10.3174/ajnr.A2704
VO 33
IS 1
A1 L.S. Babiarz
A1 D.M. Yousem
YR 2012
UL http://www.ajnr.org/content/33/1/37.abstract
AB SUMMARY: Prior studies have found a 3%–6% clinically significant error rate in radiology practice. We set out to assess discrepancy rates between subspecialty-trained university-based neuroradiologists. Over 17 months, university neuroradiologists randomly reviewed 1000 studies and reports of previously read examinations of patients in whom follow-up studies were read. The discrepancies between the original and “second opinion” reports were scored according to a 5-point scale: 1, no change; 2, clinically insignificant detection discrepancy; 3, clinically insignificant interpretation discrepancy; 4, clinically significant detection discrepancy; and 5, clinically significant interpretation discrepancy. Of the 1000 studies, 876 (87.6%) showed agreements with the original report. The neuroradiology division had a 2.0% (20/1000; 95% CI, 1.1%–2.9%) rate of clinically significant discrepancies involving 8 CTs and 12 MR images. Discrepancies were classified as vascular (n = 7), neoplastic (n = 9), congenital (n = 2), and artifacts (n = 2). Individual neuroradiologist's scores ranged from 0% to 7.7% ± 2.3% (n = 18). Both CT and MR imaging studies had a discrepancy rate of 2.0%. Our quality assessment study could serve as initial data before intervention as part of a PQI project. ABRAmerican Board of RadiologyACGMEAccreditation Council for Graduate Medical EducationCIconfidence intervalPQIpractice quality improvement