Original contribution
Clinically significant radiograph misinterpretations at an emergency medicine residency program

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(05)82175-4Get rights and content

Radiographic misinterpretation rates have been suggested as a quality assurance tool for assessing emergency departments and individual physicians, but have not been defined for emergency medicine residency programs. A study was conducted to define misinterpretation rates for an emergency medicine residency program, compare misinterpretation rates among various radiographic studies, and determine difference with respect to level of training. A total of 12,395 radiographic studies interpreted by emergency physicians during a consecutive 12-month period were entered into a computerized data base as part of our quality assurance program. The radiologist's interpretation was defined as correct. Clinical significance of all discrepancies was determined prospectively by ED faculty. Four hundred seventy-five (3.4%) total errors and 350 (2.8%) clinically significant errors were found. There was a difference in clinically significant misinterpretation rates among the seven most frequently obtained radiograph studies (P < .0005, χ2), accounted for by the 9% misinterpretation rates for facial films. No difference (P = .421) was noted among full-time, part-time, third-year, second-year, and “other” physicians. This finding is likely due to faculty review of residents' readings. Evaluation of misinterpretation rates as a quality assurance tool is necessary to determine the role of radiographic quality assurance in emergency medicine resident training. Educational activities should be directed toward radiographic studies with higher-than-average reported misinterpretation rates.

References (11)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (78)

  • After-hour trauma-radiograph interpretation in the emergency centre of a District Hospital

    2022, African Journal of Emergency Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    This may have contributed to this finding. Notwithstanding the limitations of comparing studies of radiological reporting performance, the 77% overall accuracy achieved by EC staff in this study is well within the 44% - 99% range [ref] documented in the international literature for non-radiologist reporting of conventional trauma radiographs in the clinical environment [13,22,36]. A major strength of this study was its foundation on two robust digital databases, one being an electronic medical record and the other a picture archiving and communication system.

  • Smartphone evaluation of postero-anterior chest x-rays: An inter-observer study

    2021, American Journal of Emergency Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    No significant difference was determined in either of the two groups [4]. Differences up to 16.8% were shown between emergency medicine specialists and radiologists with regard to interpretation of PA-CXRs [11,12]. In the study of Saafari et al., PA-CXR interpretations of emergency medicine specialists and radiologists were found to be similar at a rate of 98.5% [13].

  • An audit of the polytrauma fracture detection rate of clinicians evaluating lodox statscan bodygrams in two South African public sector trauma units

    2019, Injury
    Citation Excerpt :

    As such, it contributes to our understanding of the clinical role of a relatively new imaging modality. The 89% (174/195) fracture-detection rate by trauma doctors in this study is at the higher end of international norms for non-radiologist reporting of conventional trauma radiographs in the clinical environment [10,19,17,18], albeit below the best results achieved in such a setting. However, it is substantially higher than the 68% fracture-detection rate documented in a previous study of trauma-radiograph interpretation by doctors blinded to clinical details [16].

  • The Pittsburgh Decision Rule: Triage nurse versus physician utilization in the emergency department

    2006, Journal of Emergency Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    Every year, acute knee injuries account for about 1.3 million Emergency Department (ED) visits in the United States (1). Acute knee trauma results in a fracture in only about 6% of cases, leading to many unnecessary radiographs (2,3). The overuse of radiographs prolongs ED waiting times, drives up health care costs, and exposes patients to unnecessary radiation (4).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text