TY - JOUR T1 - Quality Control in Neuroradiology: Impact of Trainees on Discrepancy Rates JF - American Journal of Neuroradiology JO - Am. J. Neuroradiol. SP - 1032 LP - 1036 DO - 10.3174/ajnr.A2933 VL - 33 IS - 6 AU - V.G. Viertel AU - L.S. Babiarz AU - M. Carone AU - J.S. Lewin AU - D.M. Yousem Y1 - 2012/06/01 UR - http://www.ajnr.org/content/33/6/1032.abstract N2 - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prior studies have found a 2%–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 “second opinion” 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%–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, 0.38–4.20) when reading with a resident and 8% less (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.35–2.44) 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 ER -