Radiology Residents' On-Call Interpretation of Chest Radiographs for Congestive Heart Failure

Eric J. Feldmann, Vineet R. Jain, Saul Rakoff, Linda B. Haramati

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives: This study was designed to evaluate the performance of radiology residents in interpreting emergency department (ED) chest radiographs for congestive heart failure and to characterize the factors associated with a subsequent amended interpretation by an attending radiologist. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all amended reports for ED chest radiographs between January 2004 and July 2005 and identified those with discrepant interpretations regarding the diagnosis of congestive heart failure. A total of 1.9% (476 of 24,600) of chest radiographs were amended over the study period. Forty-eight patients (75% female, mean age 66 years) whose chest radiograph was amended for the diagnosis of congestive heart failure and were available for review formed the study population. A control group of 35 patients (69% female, mean age 67 years) were individually matched to a convenience subset of patients by age, gender, clinical indication, and radiographic projection. Chest radiographs were in the anteroposterior projection in 62% (30 of 48) of study patients and 60% (21 of 35) of controls. A blinded expert panel of three board-certified cardiothoracic radiologists jointly reviewed each chest radiograph for the presence or absence of congestive heart failure and its specific radiographic findings. Results: The expert panel diagnosed congestive heart failure in 19% (9 of 48) of study patients and in 23% (8 of 35) of controls (P = .65). When present, congestive heart failure was mild to moderate in severity in both the study and control groups (P = 1.00). There was a significant difference in the expert panel agreement between the attending versus the resident interpretation (65% versus 35%, P = .008), for the study group. This resulted in fair agreement (κ = 0.29) between the expert panel and the attending interpretation and no agreement (κ = -0.29) between the expert panel and the resident interpretation. In contrast, the expert panel agreed with the joint resident/attending interpretation in 83% (29 of 35) of controls, yielding substantial agreement (κ = 0.72). Conclusion: Interpretation of chest radiographs for congestive heart failure by radiology residents has a low error rate. The majority of chest radiographs with discrepant resident and attending interpretations were portable films of female patients with subtle radiographic findings of congestive heart failure, and were inherently difficult to interpret.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1264-1270
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic Radiology
Volume14
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2007

Fingerprint

Radiology
Thorax
Heart Failure
Hospital Emergency Service
Control Groups
Joints
Population

Keywords

  • Chest radiography
  • congestive heart failure
  • emergency department

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Radiology Residents' On-Call Interpretation of Chest Radiographs for Congestive Heart Failure. / Feldmann, Eric J.; Jain, Vineet R.; Rakoff, Saul; Haramati, Linda B.

In: Academic Radiology, Vol. 14, No. 10, 10.2007, p. 1264-1270.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5f871c825e7d487290648de152e46275,
title = "Radiology Residents' On-Call Interpretation of Chest Radiographs for Congestive Heart Failure",
abstract = "Rationale and Objectives: This study was designed to evaluate the performance of radiology residents in interpreting emergency department (ED) chest radiographs for congestive heart failure and to characterize the factors associated with a subsequent amended interpretation by an attending radiologist. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all amended reports for ED chest radiographs between January 2004 and July 2005 and identified those with discrepant interpretations regarding the diagnosis of congestive heart failure. A total of 1.9{\%} (476 of 24,600) of chest radiographs were amended over the study period. Forty-eight patients (75{\%} female, mean age 66 years) whose chest radiograph was amended for the diagnosis of congestive heart failure and were available for review formed the study population. A control group of 35 patients (69{\%} female, mean age 67 years) were individually matched to a convenience subset of patients by age, gender, clinical indication, and radiographic projection. Chest radiographs were in the anteroposterior projection in 62{\%} (30 of 48) of study patients and 60{\%} (21 of 35) of controls. A blinded expert panel of three board-certified cardiothoracic radiologists jointly reviewed each chest radiograph for the presence or absence of congestive heart failure and its specific radiographic findings. Results: The expert panel diagnosed congestive heart failure in 19{\%} (9 of 48) of study patients and in 23{\%} (8 of 35) of controls (P = .65). When present, congestive heart failure was mild to moderate in severity in both the study and control groups (P = 1.00). There was a significant difference in the expert panel agreement between the attending versus the resident interpretation (65{\%} versus 35{\%}, P = .008), for the study group. This resulted in fair agreement (κ = 0.29) between the expert panel and the attending interpretation and no agreement (κ = -0.29) between the expert panel and the resident interpretation. In contrast, the expert panel agreed with the joint resident/attending interpretation in 83{\%} (29 of 35) of controls, yielding substantial agreement (κ = 0.72). Conclusion: Interpretation of chest radiographs for congestive heart failure by radiology residents has a low error rate. The majority of chest radiographs with discrepant resident and attending interpretations were portable films of female patients with subtle radiographic findings of congestive heart failure, and were inherently difficult to interpret.",
keywords = "Chest radiography, congestive heart failure, emergency department",
author = "Feldmann, {Eric J.} and Jain, {Vineet R.} and Saul Rakoff and Haramati, {Linda B.}",
year = "2007",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.acra.2007.06.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "1264--1270",
journal = "Academic Radiology",
issn = "1076-6332",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Radiology Residents' On-Call Interpretation of Chest Radiographs for Congestive Heart Failure

AU - Feldmann, Eric J.

AU - Jain, Vineet R.

AU - Rakoff, Saul

AU - Haramati, Linda B.

PY - 2007/10

Y1 - 2007/10

N2 - Rationale and Objectives: This study was designed to evaluate the performance of radiology residents in interpreting emergency department (ED) chest radiographs for congestive heart failure and to characterize the factors associated with a subsequent amended interpretation by an attending radiologist. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all amended reports for ED chest radiographs between January 2004 and July 2005 and identified those with discrepant interpretations regarding the diagnosis of congestive heart failure. A total of 1.9% (476 of 24,600) of chest radiographs were amended over the study period. Forty-eight patients (75% female, mean age 66 years) whose chest radiograph was amended for the diagnosis of congestive heart failure and were available for review formed the study population. A control group of 35 patients (69% female, mean age 67 years) were individually matched to a convenience subset of patients by age, gender, clinical indication, and radiographic projection. Chest radiographs were in the anteroposterior projection in 62% (30 of 48) of study patients and 60% (21 of 35) of controls. A blinded expert panel of three board-certified cardiothoracic radiologists jointly reviewed each chest radiograph for the presence or absence of congestive heart failure and its specific radiographic findings. Results: The expert panel diagnosed congestive heart failure in 19% (9 of 48) of study patients and in 23% (8 of 35) of controls (P = .65). When present, congestive heart failure was mild to moderate in severity in both the study and control groups (P = 1.00). There was a significant difference in the expert panel agreement between the attending versus the resident interpretation (65% versus 35%, P = .008), for the study group. This resulted in fair agreement (κ = 0.29) between the expert panel and the attending interpretation and no agreement (κ = -0.29) between the expert panel and the resident interpretation. In contrast, the expert panel agreed with the joint resident/attending interpretation in 83% (29 of 35) of controls, yielding substantial agreement (κ = 0.72). Conclusion: Interpretation of chest radiographs for congestive heart failure by radiology residents has a low error rate. The majority of chest radiographs with discrepant resident and attending interpretations were portable films of female patients with subtle radiographic findings of congestive heart failure, and were inherently difficult to interpret.

AB - Rationale and Objectives: This study was designed to evaluate the performance of radiology residents in interpreting emergency department (ED) chest radiographs for congestive heart failure and to characterize the factors associated with a subsequent amended interpretation by an attending radiologist. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all amended reports for ED chest radiographs between January 2004 and July 2005 and identified those with discrepant interpretations regarding the diagnosis of congestive heart failure. A total of 1.9% (476 of 24,600) of chest radiographs were amended over the study period. Forty-eight patients (75% female, mean age 66 years) whose chest radiograph was amended for the diagnosis of congestive heart failure and were available for review formed the study population. A control group of 35 patients (69% female, mean age 67 years) were individually matched to a convenience subset of patients by age, gender, clinical indication, and radiographic projection. Chest radiographs were in the anteroposterior projection in 62% (30 of 48) of study patients and 60% (21 of 35) of controls. A blinded expert panel of three board-certified cardiothoracic radiologists jointly reviewed each chest radiograph for the presence or absence of congestive heart failure and its specific radiographic findings. Results: The expert panel diagnosed congestive heart failure in 19% (9 of 48) of study patients and in 23% (8 of 35) of controls (P = .65). When present, congestive heart failure was mild to moderate in severity in both the study and control groups (P = 1.00). There was a significant difference in the expert panel agreement between the attending versus the resident interpretation (65% versus 35%, P = .008), for the study group. This resulted in fair agreement (κ = 0.29) between the expert panel and the attending interpretation and no agreement (κ = -0.29) between the expert panel and the resident interpretation. In contrast, the expert panel agreed with the joint resident/attending interpretation in 83% (29 of 35) of controls, yielding substantial agreement (κ = 0.72). Conclusion: Interpretation of chest radiographs for congestive heart failure by radiology residents has a low error rate. The majority of chest radiographs with discrepant resident and attending interpretations were portable films of female patients with subtle radiographic findings of congestive heart failure, and were inherently difficult to interpret.

KW - Chest radiography

KW - congestive heart failure

KW - emergency department

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34548668694&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34548668694&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.acra.2007.06.007

DO - 10.1016/j.acra.2007.06.007

M3 - Article

C2 - 17889343

AN - SCOPUS:34548668694

VL - 14

SP - 1264

EP - 1270

JO - Academic Radiology

JF - Academic Radiology

SN - 1076-6332

IS - 10

ER -