Body MRI Subspecialty Reinterpretations at a Tertiary Care Center: Discrepancy Rates and Error Types
| Autor: | Dmitriy Akselrod, Price W DeHay, David P. Keating, Robert D'Agostino, Judy K Tam, Danielle E. Kostrubiak, Naiim Ali |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Adult
Male medicine.medical_specialty Contrast Media Subspecialty Tertiary care Abdomen Humans Medicine Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging Diagnostic Errors Aged Retrospective Studies Aged 80 and over Observer Variation Pelvic MRI business.industry General surgery General Medicine Middle Aged Magnetic Resonance Imaging Community hospital Categorization Satisfaction of search Female Clinical Competence Mr images Abnormality business |
| Zdroj: | American Journal of Roentgenology. 215:1384-1388 |
| ISSN: | 1546-3141 0361-803X |
| DOI: | 10.2214/ajr.20.22797 |
| Popis: | OBJECTIVE. Radiology departments in tertiary care centers are frequently asked to perform secondary interpretations of imaging studies, particularly when a patient is transferred from a community hospital. Discrepancy rates in radiology vary widely, with low rates reported for preliminary resident reports that are overread by attending radiologists (2-6%) and higher rates (up to 56%) for secondary interpretations. Abdominal and pelvic imaging and cross-sectional imaging have the highest discrepancy rates. The purpose of our study was to determine the discrepancy rate and the most common reasons for discrepancies between abdominal and pelvic MRI reports obtained from outside institutions and secondary interpretations of these reports by a fellowship-trained radiologist at a tertiary care center. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We retrospectively identified 395 secondary MRI reports from January 2015 to December 2018 that were labeled as body MRI examinations at a tertiary care center. Thirty-eight cases were excluded for various reasons, including incorrect categorization or lack of outside report. We reviewed the outside reports, compared them with the secondary interpretations, and categorized the cases as discrepancy or no discrepancy. The discrepancies were subdivided into the most likely reason for the error using previously published categories; these categories were also divided into perceptive and cognitive errors. RESULTS. Of the 357 included cases, 246 (68.9%) had at least one discrepancy. The most common reason for error was faulty reasoning (34.3%), which is a cognitive error characterized by misidentifying an abnormality. Satisfaction of search, which is a perceptive error, was the most common reason for second discrepancies (15.0%). CONCLUSION. Secondary interpretations of body MR images at a tertiary care center identify a high rate of discrepancies, with cognitive error types predominating. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|