Radiology Report Addenda: A Self-Report Approach to Error Identification, Quantification, and Classification

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to analyze report addenda to assess the self-reported error rate in radiologic study interpretation, the types of errors that occur, and the distribution of error by image modality. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Addenda to all diagnostic radiology reports were compiled over a 1-year period (n = 5568). The overall error rate was based on addenda frequency relative to the total number of studies performed. Addenda written over the most recent 2-month interval (n = 851) were classified into five major categories of predominant error type: underreading, overreading, poor communication, insufficient history, and poor technique. Each category was further divided into multiple subtypes. RESULTS. Diagnostic studies at our hospital had an error rate of 0.8%. Errors of poor communication occurred most frequently (44%), followed by underreading (7%), insufficient history (21%), overreading (8%), and poor technique (1%). Analyzed by imaging modality, most errors occurred in PET (19.45 per 1000 studies), followed by MRI (13.86 per 1000 studies) and CT (12.45 per 1000 studies). CONCLUSION. Through the use of report addenda to calculate error, discrepancy between individual radiologists is removed in a reproducible and widely applicable way. This approach to error typology eliminates sample bias and in a departure from previous analyses of difficult cases shows that errors of communication are most frequent, representing a clear area for targeted improvement.