Management-changing errors in the recall of radiologic results - a pilot study
- PMID: 22382083
- DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2011.07.054
Management-changing errors in the recall of radiologic results - a pilot study
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the occurrence of alterations to diagnostic information from radiological studies, which are altered by person-to-person communication and/or faulty recall, and whether they affect patient management
Materials and methods: A structured telephone survey was conducted at a large tertiary care medical centre of house staff managing inpatients who had undergone chest, abdominal, or pelvic computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and remained in the hospital at least 2 days later. Fifty-six physicians were surveyed regarding 98 patient cases. Each physician was asked how he or she first became aware of the results of the study. Each was then asked to recall the substance of radiological interpretation and to compare it with the radiology report. Each was then asked to assess the level of difference between the interpretations and whether management was affected. Results were correlated with the route by which interviewees became aware of the report, the report length, and whether the managing service was medical or surgical.
Results: In nearly 15% (14/98) of cases, differences between the recalled and official results were such that patient management could have been (11.2%) or had already been affected (3.1%). There was no significant correlation between errors and either the route of report communication or the report length.
Conclusion: There was a substantial rate of error in the recall and/or transmission of diagnostic radiological information, which was sufficiently severe to affect patient management.
Copyright © 2012 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Eight CT lessons that we learned the hard way: an analysis of current patterns of radiological error and discrepancy with particular emphasis on CT.Clin Radiol. 2009 May;64(5):491-9; discussion 500-1. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2008.12.010. Epub 2009 Mar 3. Clin Radiol. 2009. PMID: 19348844
-
Body MR imaging and CT volume: variations and trends based on an analysis of medicare and fee-for-service health insurance databases.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Jul;179(1):27-31. doi: 10.2214/ajr.179.1.1790027. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002. PMID: 12076898
-
Assessing the appropriateness of outpatient abdominopelvic CT and MRI examinations using the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria.Acad Radiol. 2015 Feb;22(2):158-63. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.08.005. Epub 2014 Oct 14. Acad Radiol. 2015. PMID: 25442803
-
Common Resident Errors When Interpreting Computed Tomography of the Abdomen and Pelvis: A Review of Types, Pitfalls, and Strategies for Improvement.Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2019 Jan;48(1):4-9. doi: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.12.010. Epub 2018 Jan 6. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2019. PMID: 29397268 Review.
-
Pearls and pitfalls in interpretation of abdominal and pelvic PET-CT.Radiographics. 2006 Sep-Oct;26(5):1335-53. doi: 10.1148/rg.265055208. Radiographics. 2006. PMID: 16973768 Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
