Radiology Resident Interpretations of On-call Imaging Studies. The Incidence of Major Discrepancies

Victoria F. Cooper, Lori Ann Goodhartz, Albert A Nemcek Jr, Robert K. Ryu*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

76 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives: To determine the incidence of radiology resident preliminary interpretation errors for plain film, body computed tomography, and neuroradiology (neuro)computed tomographic examinations read on call. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data in a prospectively acquired resident quality assurance (QA) database dating between January 2000 and March 2007. The database comprises all imaging studies initially interpreted by an on-call resident and later reviewed by a board-certified attending radiologist who determined the level of discrepancy between the two interpretations according to a graded scale from 0 (no discrepancy) to 3 (major discrepancy). We reviewed the data with respect to resident training level, imaging modality, and variance level. Statistical analysis was performed with χ2 test, α = 0.05. We compared our results with other published series studying resident and attending accuracy. Results: A total of 141,381 cases were entered into the database during the review period. Of all examinations, 95.7% had zero variance, 3.3% minor variance, and 1.0% major variance. There was a slight, statistically significant increase in overall accuracy with increased resident year from 95.4% of examinations read by first-year residents (R1s) to 96.1% by fourth-year resident (R4s) (P < .0001). Overall percentages of exams with major discrepancies were 1.0% for R1s, 1.1% for second-year residents, 1.0% for third-year residents, and 0.98% for R4s. Conclusions: The majority of preliminary resident interpretations are highly accurate. The incidence of major discrepancies is extremely low and similar, even with R1s, to that of attending radiologists published in other studies. A slight, statistically significant decrease in the error rate is detectable as residents gain experience throughout the 4 years of residency.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1198-1204
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic Radiology
Volume15
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2008

Fingerprint

Radiology
Databases
Incidence
Motion Pictures
Internship and Residency
Tomography
Radiologists

Keywords

  • Residents
  • error rate
  • on-call
  • quality assurance
  • resident education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{4892e48b979045d294c625bec86a6557,
title = "Radiology Resident Interpretations of On-call Imaging Studies. The Incidence of Major Discrepancies",
abstract = "Rationale and Objectives: To determine the incidence of radiology resident preliminary interpretation errors for plain film, body computed tomography, and neuroradiology (neuro)computed tomographic examinations read on call. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data in a prospectively acquired resident quality assurance (QA) database dating between January 2000 and March 2007. The database comprises all imaging studies initially interpreted by an on-call resident and later reviewed by a board-certified attending radiologist who determined the level of discrepancy between the two interpretations according to a graded scale from 0 (no discrepancy) to 3 (major discrepancy). We reviewed the data with respect to resident training level, imaging modality, and variance level. Statistical analysis was performed with χ2 test, α = 0.05. We compared our results with other published series studying resident and attending accuracy. Results: A total of 141,381 cases were entered into the database during the review period. Of all examinations, 95.7{\%} had zero variance, 3.3{\%} minor variance, and 1.0{\%} major variance. There was a slight, statistically significant increase in overall accuracy with increased resident year from 95.4{\%} of examinations read by first-year residents (R1s) to 96.1{\%} by fourth-year resident (R4s) (P < .0001). Overall percentages of exams with major discrepancies were 1.0{\%} for R1s, 1.1{\%} for second-year residents, 1.0{\%} for third-year residents, and 0.98{\%} for R4s. Conclusions: The majority of preliminary resident interpretations are highly accurate. The incidence of major discrepancies is extremely low and similar, even with R1s, to that of attending radiologists published in other studies. A slight, statistically significant decrease in the error rate is detectable as residents gain experience throughout the 4 years of residency.",
keywords = "Residents, error rate, on-call, quality assurance, resident education",
author = "Cooper, {Victoria F.} and Goodhartz, {Lori Ann} and {Nemcek Jr}, {Albert A} and Ryu, {Robert K.}",
year = "2008",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.acra.2008.02.011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "1198--1204",
journal = "Academic Radiology",
issn = "1076-6332",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "9",

}

Radiology Resident Interpretations of On-call Imaging Studies. The Incidence of Major Discrepancies. / Cooper, Victoria F.; Goodhartz, Lori Ann; Nemcek Jr, Albert A; Ryu, Robert K.

In: Academic Radiology, Vol. 15, No. 9, 01.09.2008, p. 1198-1204.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Radiology Resident Interpretations of On-call Imaging Studies. The Incidence of Major Discrepancies

AU - Cooper, Victoria F.

AU - Goodhartz, Lori Ann

AU - Nemcek Jr, Albert A

AU - Ryu, Robert K.

PY - 2008/9/1

Y1 - 2008/9/1

N2 - Rationale and Objectives: To determine the incidence of radiology resident preliminary interpretation errors for plain film, body computed tomography, and neuroradiology (neuro)computed tomographic examinations read on call. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data in a prospectively acquired resident quality assurance (QA) database dating between January 2000 and March 2007. The database comprises all imaging studies initially interpreted by an on-call resident and later reviewed by a board-certified attending radiologist who determined the level of discrepancy between the two interpretations according to a graded scale from 0 (no discrepancy) to 3 (major discrepancy). We reviewed the data with respect to resident training level, imaging modality, and variance level. Statistical analysis was performed with χ2 test, α = 0.05. We compared our results with other published series studying resident and attending accuracy. Results: A total of 141,381 cases were entered into the database during the review period. Of all examinations, 95.7% had zero variance, 3.3% minor variance, and 1.0% major variance. There was a slight, statistically significant increase in overall accuracy with increased resident year from 95.4% of examinations read by first-year residents (R1s) to 96.1% by fourth-year resident (R4s) (P < .0001). Overall percentages of exams with major discrepancies were 1.0% for R1s, 1.1% for second-year residents, 1.0% for third-year residents, and 0.98% for R4s. Conclusions: The majority of preliminary resident interpretations are highly accurate. The incidence of major discrepancies is extremely low and similar, even with R1s, to that of attending radiologists published in other studies. A slight, statistically significant decrease in the error rate is detectable as residents gain experience throughout the 4 years of residency.

AB - Rationale and Objectives: To determine the incidence of radiology resident preliminary interpretation errors for plain film, body computed tomography, and neuroradiology (neuro)computed tomographic examinations read on call. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data in a prospectively acquired resident quality assurance (QA) database dating between January 2000 and March 2007. The database comprises all imaging studies initially interpreted by an on-call resident and later reviewed by a board-certified attending radiologist who determined the level of discrepancy between the two interpretations according to a graded scale from 0 (no discrepancy) to 3 (major discrepancy). We reviewed the data with respect to resident training level, imaging modality, and variance level. Statistical analysis was performed with χ2 test, α = 0.05. We compared our results with other published series studying resident and attending accuracy. Results: A total of 141,381 cases were entered into the database during the review period. Of all examinations, 95.7% had zero variance, 3.3% minor variance, and 1.0% major variance. There was a slight, statistically significant increase in overall accuracy with increased resident year from 95.4% of examinations read by first-year residents (R1s) to 96.1% by fourth-year resident (R4s) (P < .0001). Overall percentages of exams with major discrepancies were 1.0% for R1s, 1.1% for second-year residents, 1.0% for third-year residents, and 0.98% for R4s. Conclusions: The majority of preliminary resident interpretations are highly accurate. The incidence of major discrepancies is extremely low and similar, even with R1s, to that of attending radiologists published in other studies. A slight, statistically significant decrease in the error rate is detectable as residents gain experience throughout the 4 years of residency.

KW - Residents

KW - error rate

KW - on-call

KW - quality assurance

KW - resident education

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=48649088509&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=48649088509&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.acra.2008.02.011

DO - 10.1016/j.acra.2008.02.011

M3 - Article

C2 - 18692761

AN - SCOPUS:48649088509

VL - 15

SP - 1198

EP - 1204

JO - Academic Radiology

JF - Academic Radiology

SN - 1076-6332

IS - 9

ER -