The degree of abdominal imaging (AI) subspecialization of the reviewing radiologist significantly impacts the number of clinically relevant and incidental discrepancies identified during peer review of emergency after-hours body CT studies

被引:20
作者
Bell, Megan E. [1 ]
Patel, Maitray D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Dept Radiol, Phoenix, AZ 85054 USA
来源
ABDOMINAL IMAGING | 2014年 / 39卷 / 05期
关键词
Peer review; Over read; Discrepancy; Body CT; Subspecialization; 2ND-OPINION CONSULTATIONS; REINTERPRETATION; NEURORADIOLOGY; DISAGREEMENT; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1007/s00261-014-0139-4
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
To evaluate if and to what extent the degree of subspecialization in abdominal imaging (AI) affects rates of discrepancies identified on review of body CT studies initially interpreted by board-certified radiologists not specialized in AI. AI division radiologists at one academic medical center were classified as primary or secondary members of the division based on whether they perform more or less than 50% of their clinical duties in AI. Primary AI division radiologists were further subdivided based on whether or not they focus their clinical duties almost exclusively in AI. All AI radiologists performed subspecialty review of all after-hours body CT studies initially interpreted by any non-division radiologist. The discrepancies identified in the subspecialty review of consecutive after-hours body CT scans performed between 7/1/10 and 12/31/10 were analyzed and placed into one of three categories: (1) discrepancies that potentially affect patient care ("clinically relevant discrepancies", or CRD); (2) discrepancies that would not affect patient care ("incidental discrepancies", or ID); and (3) other types of comments. Rates of CRD and ID detection were compared between subgroups of Abdominal Imaging Division radiologists divided by the degree of subspecialization. 1303 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of 742 cases reviewed by primary members of the AI division, 33 (4.4%) had CRD and 78 (10.5%) had ID. Of 561 cases reviewed by secondary members of the AI division, 11 (2.0%) had CRD and 36 (6.5%) had ID. The differences between the groups for both types of discrepancies were statistically significant (p = 0.01). When primary members of the AI division were further subdivided based on extent of clinical focus on abdominal imaging, rates of CRD and ID detection were higher for the subgroup with more clinical focus on abdominal imaging. The degree of AI subspecialization affects the rate of clinically relevant and ID identified in body CT interpretations initially rendered by board certified but non-abdominal imaging subspecialized radiologists.
引用
收藏
页码:1114 / 1118
页数:5
相关论文
共 18 条
  • [1] Amis E Stephen Jr, 2009, J Am Coll Radiol, V6, P103, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2008.08.005
  • [2] Borgstede James P, 2004, J Am Coll Radiol, V1, P59, DOI 10.1016/S1546-1440(03)00002-4
  • [3] The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: is there added value?
    Briggs, G. M.
    Flynn, P. A.
    Worthington, M.
    Rennie, I.
    McKinstry, C. S.
    [J]. CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2008, 63 (07) : 791 - 795
  • [4] Volume and impact of second-opinion consultations by radiologists at a tertiary care cancer center: Data
    DiPiro, PJ
    vanSonnenberg, E
    Tumeh, SS
    Ros, PR
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2002, 9 (12) : 1430 - 1433
  • [5] Second Opinion Interpretations by Specialty Radiologists at a Pediatric Hospital: Rate of Disagreement and Clinical Implications
    Eakins, Christopher
    Ellis, Wendy D.
    Pruthi, Sumit
    Johnson, David P.
    Hernanz-Schulman, Marta
    Yu, Chang
    Kan, J. Herman
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2012, 199 (04) : 916 - 920
  • [6] Halsted Mark J, 2004, J Am Coll Radiol, V1, P984, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2004.06.005
  • [7] Jackson Valerie P, 2009, J Am Coll Radiol, V6, P21, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2008.06.011
  • [8] Formal reporting of second-opinion CT interpretation: Experience and reimbursement in the emergency department setting
    Adam B. Jeffers
    Amina Saghir
    Marc Camacho
    [J]. Emergency Radiology, 2012, 19 (3) : 187 - 193
  • [9] Quality Outcomes of Reinterpretation of Brain CT Studies by Subspecialty Experts in Stroke Imaging
    Jordan, Yusef J.
    Jordan, John E.
    Lightfoote, Johnson B.
    Ragland, Karen D.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2012, 199 (06) : 1365 - 1370
  • [10] Strategies for Establishing a Comprehensive Quality and Performance Improvement Program in a Radiology Department
    Kruskal, Jonathan B.
    Anderson, Stephan
    Yam, Chun S.
    Sosna, Jacob
    [J]. RADIOGRAPHICS, 2009, 29 (02) : 315 - U25