Discrepancies in interpretation of ED body computed tomographic scans by radiology residents

Nelson Tieng, Diana Grinberg, Siu Fai Li

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: In academic institutions, radiology residents are often relied on for providing preliminary reports of imaging studies done in the ED. We examined the prevalence of discrepant interpretations of body computed tomographic (CT) scans in our institution. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on a consecutive series of body CT scans at an urban ED. We compared the preliminary interpretation by radiology residents with the final interpretation by radiology attending physicians. An interpretation was characterized as having no discrepancy, minor discrepancy, or major discrepancy. A major discrepancy was defined as a discrepancy that resulted in a change in diagnosis, treatment, or disposition. Results: Two hundred three body CT scans were identified during the study period. Of these CT scans, 20 had major discrepancies (10%), 40 had minor discrepancies (20%), and 143 had no discrepancy (70%). Major discrepancies included missed appendicitis, normal appendix, missed bowel obstruction, and missed colon cancer. Computed tomographic scans with abnormal findings were more likely to contain major discrepancies (relative risk = 6.0; 95% confidence interval = 1.8-2.0). Conclusion: Discrepancies between radiology residents and radiology attending physicians were common at our institution. Emergency department physicians should exercise caution when relying on residents' interpretation of body CT scans.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)45-48
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume25
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2007

Fingerprint

Radiology
Physicians
Appendicitis
Colonic Neoplasms
Hospital Emergency Service
Retrospective Studies
Confidence Intervals
Exercise
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Discrepancies in interpretation of ED body computed tomographic scans by radiology residents. / Tieng, Nelson; Grinberg, Diana; Li, Siu Fai.

In: American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 25, No. 1, 01.2007, p. 45-48.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{cb3d885932074af680def94ed5a021ae,
title = "Discrepancies in interpretation of ED body computed tomographic scans by radiology residents",
abstract = "Objective: In academic institutions, radiology residents are often relied on for providing preliminary reports of imaging studies done in the ED. We examined the prevalence of discrepant interpretations of body computed tomographic (CT) scans in our institution. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on a consecutive series of body CT scans at an urban ED. We compared the preliminary interpretation by radiology residents with the final interpretation by radiology attending physicians. An interpretation was characterized as having no discrepancy, minor discrepancy, or major discrepancy. A major discrepancy was defined as a discrepancy that resulted in a change in diagnosis, treatment, or disposition. Results: Two hundred three body CT scans were identified during the study period. Of these CT scans, 20 had major discrepancies (10{\%}), 40 had minor discrepancies (20{\%}), and 143 had no discrepancy (70{\%}). Major discrepancies included missed appendicitis, normal appendix, missed bowel obstruction, and missed colon cancer. Computed tomographic scans with abnormal findings were more likely to contain major discrepancies (relative risk = 6.0; 95{\%} confidence interval = 1.8-2.0). Conclusion: Discrepancies between radiology residents and radiology attending physicians were common at our institution. Emergency department physicians should exercise caution when relying on residents' interpretation of body CT scans.",
author = "Nelson Tieng and Diana Grinberg and Li, {Siu Fai}",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajem.2006.04.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "45--48",
journal = "American Journal of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0735-6757",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Discrepancies in interpretation of ED body computed tomographic scans by radiology residents

AU - Tieng, Nelson

AU - Grinberg, Diana

AU - Li, Siu Fai

PY - 2007/1

Y1 - 2007/1

N2 - Objective: In academic institutions, radiology residents are often relied on for providing preliminary reports of imaging studies done in the ED. We examined the prevalence of discrepant interpretations of body computed tomographic (CT) scans in our institution. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on a consecutive series of body CT scans at an urban ED. We compared the preliminary interpretation by radiology residents with the final interpretation by radiology attending physicians. An interpretation was characterized as having no discrepancy, minor discrepancy, or major discrepancy. A major discrepancy was defined as a discrepancy that resulted in a change in diagnosis, treatment, or disposition. Results: Two hundred three body CT scans were identified during the study period. Of these CT scans, 20 had major discrepancies (10%), 40 had minor discrepancies (20%), and 143 had no discrepancy (70%). Major discrepancies included missed appendicitis, normal appendix, missed bowel obstruction, and missed colon cancer. Computed tomographic scans with abnormal findings were more likely to contain major discrepancies (relative risk = 6.0; 95% confidence interval = 1.8-2.0). Conclusion: Discrepancies between radiology residents and radiology attending physicians were common at our institution. Emergency department physicians should exercise caution when relying on residents' interpretation of body CT scans.

AB - Objective: In academic institutions, radiology residents are often relied on for providing preliminary reports of imaging studies done in the ED. We examined the prevalence of discrepant interpretations of body computed tomographic (CT) scans in our institution. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on a consecutive series of body CT scans at an urban ED. We compared the preliminary interpretation by radiology residents with the final interpretation by radiology attending physicians. An interpretation was characterized as having no discrepancy, minor discrepancy, or major discrepancy. A major discrepancy was defined as a discrepancy that resulted in a change in diagnosis, treatment, or disposition. Results: Two hundred three body CT scans were identified during the study period. Of these CT scans, 20 had major discrepancies (10%), 40 had minor discrepancies (20%), and 143 had no discrepancy (70%). Major discrepancies included missed appendicitis, normal appendix, missed bowel obstruction, and missed colon cancer. Computed tomographic scans with abnormal findings were more likely to contain major discrepancies (relative risk = 6.0; 95% confidence interval = 1.8-2.0). Conclusion: Discrepancies between radiology residents and radiology attending physicians were common at our institution. Emergency department physicians should exercise caution when relying on residents' interpretation of body CT scans.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845205852&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845205852&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajem.2006.04.008

DO - 10.1016/j.ajem.2006.04.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 17157681

AN - SCOPUS:33845205852

VL - 25

SP - 45

EP - 48

JO - American Journal of Emergency Medicine

JF - American Journal of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0735-6757

IS - 1

ER -