Do Radiology Residents Perform Well in Preliminary Reporting of Emergency MRIs of Spine?
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: To evaluate interpretation errors involving spine MRIs by residents in their second to fourth year of training, classified as minor, intermediate and major discrepancies, as well as the types of commonly discordant lesions with or without clinical significance. Materials and Methods: A staff radiologist evaluated both preliminary and final reports of 582 spine MRIs performed in the emergency room from March 2011 to February 2013, involving (1) the incidence of report discrepancy, classified as minor if there was sufficient description of the main MR findings without ancillary or incidental lesions not influencing the main diagnosis, treatment, or patients’ clinical course; intermediate if the correct diagnosis was made with insufficient or inadequate explanation, potentially influencing treatment or clinical course; and major if the discrepancy affected the main diagnosis; and (2) the common causes of discrepancy. We analyzed the differences in the incidence of discrepancy with respect to the training years of residents, age and sex of patients. Results: Interpretation discrepancy occurred in 229 of the 582 cases (229/582, 39.3%), including 146 minor (146/582, 25.1%), 40 intermediate (40/582, 6.9%), and 43 major cases (43/582, 7.4%). The common causes of major discrepancy were: overdiagnosis of fracture (n = 10), missed cord lesion (n = 9), missed signal abnormalities associated with diffuse marrow (n = 5), and failure to provide differential diagnosis of focal abnormal marrow signal intensity (n = 5). No significant difference was found in the incidence of minor, intermediate, and major discrepancies according to the levels of residency, patients’ age or sex. Conclusion: A 7.4% rate of major discrepancies was found in preliminary reporting of emergency MRIs of spine interpreted by radiology residents, probably related to a relative lack of clinical experience, indicating the need for additional training, especially involving spine trauma, spinal cord and bone marrow lesions.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate interpretation errors involving spine MRIs by residents in their second to fourth year of training, classified as minor, intermediate and major discrepancies, as well as the types of commonly discordant lesions with or without clinical significance. Materials and Methods: A staff radiologist evaluated both preliminary and final reports of 582 spine MRIs performed in the emergency room from March 2011 to February 2013, involving (1) the incidence of report discrepancy, classified as minor if there was sufficient description of the main MR findings without ancillary or incidental lesions not influencing the main diagnosis, treatment, or patients’ clinical course; intermediate if the correct diagnosis was made with insufficient or inadequate explanation, potentially influencing treatment or clinical course; and major if the discrepancy affected the main diagnosis; and (2) the common causes of discrepancy. We analyzed the differences in the incidence of discrepancy with respect to the training years of residents, age and sex of patients. Results: Interpretation discrepancy occurred in 229 of the 582 cases (229/582, 39.3%), including 146 minor (146/582, 25.1%), 40 intermediate (40/582, 6.9%), and 43 major cases (43/582, 7.4%). The common causes of major discrepancy were: overdiagnosis of fracture (n = 10), missed cord lesion (n = 9), missed signal abnormalities associated with diffuse marrow (n = 5), and failure to provide differential diagnosis of focal abnormal marrow signal intensity (n = 5). No significant difference was found in the incidence of minor, intermediate, and major discrepancies according to the levels of residency, patients’ age or sex. Conclusion: A 7.4% rate of major discrepancies was found in preliminary reporting of emergency MRIs of spine interpreted by radiology residents, probably related to a relative lack of clinical experience, indicating the need for additional training, especially involving spine trauma, spinal cord and bone marrow lesions.
참고문헌 (10)
- Yablon CM, "A needs assessment of musculoskeletal fellowship training: a survey of practicing musculoskeletal radiologists", AJR Am J Roentgenol, 200, pp.732~740 (2013)
- Walls J, "The DePICTORS Study: discrepancies in preliminary interpretation of CT scans between on-call residents and staff", Emerg Radiol, 16, pp.303~308 (2009)
- Chung JH, "Overnight resident interpretation of torso CT at a level 1 trauma center an analysis and review of the literature", Acad Radiol, 16, pp.1155~1160 (2009)[DOI]
- Miyakoshi A, "Accuracy of preliminary interpretation of neurologic CT examinations by on-call radiology residents and assessment of patient outcomes at a level I trauma center", J Am Coll Radiol, 6, pp.864~870 (2009)[DOI]
- Hochberg AR, "Accuracy of on-call resident interpretation of CT angiography for intracranial aneurysm in subarachnoid hemorrhage", AJR Am J Roentgenol, 197, pp.1436~1441 (2011)[DOI]
- Sistrom C, "Factors affecting attending agreement with resident early readings of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the head, neck, and spine", Acad Radiol, 15, pp.934~941 (2008)[DOI]
- Bruni SG, "Factors involved in discrepant preliminary radiology resident interpretations of neuroradiological imaging studies: a retrospective analysis", AJR Am J Roentgenol, 198, pp.1367~1374 (2012)[DOI]
- Filippi CG, "Discrepancy rates of radiology resident interpretations of on-call neuroradiology MR imaging studies", Radiology, 249, pp.972~979 (2008)
- Strub WM, "First year radiology residents not taking call: will there be a difference?", Emerg Radiol, 13, pp.231~235 (2007)[DOI]
- Ruutiainen AT, "Increased error rates in preliminary reports issued by radiology residents working more than 10 consecutive hours overnight", Acad Radiol, 20, pp.305~311 (2013)[DOI]