The Rate of Clinically Significant Plain Radiograph Misinterpretation by Faculty in an Emergency Medicine Residency Program

Abstract

Objective:To estimate the rate of clinically significant discrepancies between radiograph interpretations by attending radiologists and emergency medicine (EM) faculty in 2 academic EDs, using a unique scoring system. Methods:A retrospective comparison of radiographic agreement between EM and radiology faculty members was performed. All plain films initially interpreted by EM faculty or by EM residents with immediate reinterpretation by EM faculty were subsequently reviewed by attending radiologists. All discrepancies between these readings were reported to the ED on the following day for review by an EM faculty member (usually different from the initial EM faculty reader) who determined the need for treatment or follow-up changes. A secondary chart review by a quality assurance faculty member determined whether radiographic findings not noted on the x-ray log were present on the ED record. All discrepancies from February to June 1994 were reviewed. A severity score was assigned based on the following criteria. Q-0: There was no change in treatment or follow-up; or the initial interpretation by EM faculty was validated by repeat or additional views. Q-1: Discrepancy is minor. Q-2: Discrepancy is significant, with potential for injury or bad outcome. 4-3: Discrepancy is significant, with actual injury or bad outcome.Results: Of 14,046 radiographic studies eligible for enrollment, there were 134 discrepancies (0.95%). Only 28 cases (0.2%) were found to be clinically significant. Of these, 25 were scored Q-1, 3 were scored Q-2, and 0 were scored 4-3. These clinically significant discrepancy rates were highest for the finger, skull, elbow, hand, and lumbar spine. Conclusion:Emergency medicine faculty provide highly accurate rates of plain radiograph interpretation, particularly when adjusted for clinical significance and actual impact on patient care.

Interpretation of Computed Tomography of the Head: Emergency Physicians versus Radiologists

“…It is worth mentioning that in the literature one can find reports of discrepancy as high as 13.2% between readings of the same radiologic study by two radiologists (9). Therefore, it is recommended to use a panel of radiologists to improve the quality of the research (5, 12, 18, 19). False radiologic interpretations have been described differently in different studies.…”

The role of radiology in diagnostic error: a medical malpractice claims review

“…Similarly, some practices allow non-radiologists to interpret imaging studies. Multiple studies have reported a broad range of discrepancy rates between radiologists and non-radiologists, however, of the noted discrepancies, many fell into categories our review found to be high-litigation diagnoses such as missed fractures and pulmonary nodules or malignancies [3][4][5][6]. It is our goal to improve prompt identification of these important findings by recommending the adoption of comparable review processes whereby a radiologist "over-reads" imaging studies initially interpreted by non-radiologists.…”

Fractures of the Fingers Missed or Misdiagnosed on Poorly Positioned or Poorly Taken Radiographs: A Retrospective Study

“…9 One reason for missing a fracture is that the physician may be concentrating on another injury and does not obtain a radiograph of the site of the fracture. 10 In the patients included in our study, radiographs were obtained; however, because of incorrect request of oblique view instead of lateral, incorrect positioning despite correct request, or superimposition of other fingers, either the fracture was not visible on the radiograph or the displacement was not evident on the radiograph. Among seven patients in whom a fracture was missed, the AP and lateral views were appropriately requested in three patients (the thumb in one case and the other fingers in two cases).…”