Emergency medicine resident interpretation of pediatric radiographs

J. Eric Brunswick, Kaveh Ilkhanipour*, Susan Fuchs, David Seaberg

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To examine the concordance of pediatric radiograph interpretation between emergency medicine residents (EMRs) and radiologists. Methods: A prospective, observational study was performed in a university pediatric ED with an annual census of 60,000 visits. Radiographs ordered by EMRs from December 1993 through October 1994 were initially interpreted solely by the EMR, with subsequent unmasked final review by attending radiology staff. Misinterpreted radiographs were placed into 3 categories. The groupings included overreads, underreads with no change in treatment, and underreads that required a change in treatment. Results: A total of 415 radiographs were interpreted by PGY1-3 residents. Overall concordance was found for 371 radiographs (89.4%). There were 44 misinterpretations (10.6%), with 24 (5.78%) overreads, 13 (3.13%) underreads, and 7 (1.69%) underreads that required follow-up interventions. The 5 most frequently ordered radiographs were chest (28%), ankle (7%), foot (6%), wrist (5%), and hand (5%). The most frequently misinterpreted radiographs were sinus, foot, shoulder, facial, and hand. Conclusion: 89.4% of all the radiographs interpreted by PGY1-3 residents were read correctly. Only 1.69% of the misinterpreted radiographs led to a change in management. Level of training did not significantly correlate with radiograph misinterpretation rates.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)790-793
Number of pages4
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Volume3
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1996

Keywords

  • pediatric
  • quality improvement
  • radiographic interpretation
  • radiographs
  • resident education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Emergency medicine resident interpretation of pediatric radiographs'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this