@article {Viertel1032, author = {V.G. Viertel and L.S. Babiarz and M. Carone and J.S. Lewin and D.M. Yousem}, title = {Quality Control in Neuroradiology: Impact of Trainees on Discrepancy Rates}, volume = {33}, number = {6}, pages = {1032--1036}, year = {2012}, doi = {10.3174/ajnr.A2933}, publisher = {American Journal of Neuroradiology}, abstract = {BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prior studies have found a 2\%{\textendash}8\% clinically significant error rate in radiology practice. We compared discrepancy rates of studies interpreted by subspecialty-trained neuroradiologists working with and without trainees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subspecialty-trained neuroradiologists reviewed 2162 studies during 41 months. Discrepancies between the original and {\textquotedblleft}second opinion{\textquotedblright} reports were scored: 1, no change; 2, clinically insignificant detection discrepancy; 3, clinically insignificant interpretation discrepancy; 4, clinically significant detection discrepancy; and 5, clinically significant interpretation discrepancy. Faculty alone versus faculty and trainee discrepancy rates were calculated. RESULTS: In 87.6\% (1894/2162), there were no discrepancies with the original report. The neuroradiology division had a 1.8\% (39/2162; 95\% CI, 1.3\%{\textendash}2.5\%) rate of clinically significant discrepancies. In cases reviewed solely by faculty neuroradiologists (16.2\% = 350/2162 of the total), the rate of discrepancy was 1.7\% (6/350). With fellows (1232/2162, 57.0\% of total) and residents (580/2162, 26.8\% of total), the rates of discrepancy were 1.6\% (20/1232) and 2.2\% (13/580), respectively. The odds of a discrepant result were 26\% greater (OR = 1.26; 95\% CI, 0.38{\textendash}4.20) when reading with a resident and 8\% less (OR = 0.92; 95\% CI, 0.35{\textendash}2.44) when reading with a fellow than when reading alone. CONCLUSIONS: There was a 1.8\% rate of clinically significant detection or interpretation discrepancy among academic neuroradiologists. The difference in the discrepancy rates between faculty only (1.7\%), fellows and faculty (1.6\%), and residents and faculty (2.2\%) was not statistically significant but showed a trend indicating that reading with a resident increased the odds of a discrepant result. CIconfidence intervalORodds ratioQAquality assuranceSDstandard deviation}, issn = {0195-6108}, URL = {https://www.ajnr.org/content/33/6/1032}, eprint = {https://www.ajnr.org/content/33/6/1032.full.pdf}, journal = {American Journal of Neuroradiology} }