Skip to main content
Log in

Online Error Reporting for Managing Quality Control Within Radiology

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Information technology systems within health care, such as picture archiving and communication system (PACS) in radiology, can have a positive impact on production but can also risk compromising quality. The widespread use of PACS has removed the previous feedback loop between radiologists and technologists. Instead of direct communication of quality discrepancies found for an examination, the radiologist submitted a paper-based quality-control report. A web-based issue-reporting tool can help restore some of the feedback loop and also provide possibilities for more detailed analysis of submitted errors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the hypothesis that data from use of an online error reporting software for quality control can focus our efforts within our department. For the 372,258 radiologic examinations conducted during the 6-month period study, 930 errors (390 exam protocol, 390 exam validation, and 150 exam technique) were submitted, corresponding to an error rate of 0.25 %. Within the category exam protocol, technologist documentation had the highest number of submitted errors in ultrasonography (77 errors [44 %]), while imaging protocol errors were the highest subtype error for computed tomography modality (35 errors [18 %]). Positioning and incorrect accession had the highest errors in the exam technique and exam validation error category, respectively, for nearly all of the modalities. An error rate less than 1 % could signify a system with a very high quality; however, a more likely explanation is that not all errors were detected or reported. Furthermore, staff reception of the error reporting system could also affect the reporting rate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johnson CD, Swensen SJ, Glenn LW, Hovsepian DM: Quality improvement in radiology: white paper report of the 2006 Sun Valley Group meeting. J Am Coll Radiol 4(3):145–147, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Swensen SJ, Johnson CD: Radiologic quality and safety: mapping value into radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 2(12):992–1000, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hillman BJ, Amis Jr, ES, Neiman HL, FORUM Participants: The future quality and safety of medical imaging: proceedings of the third annual ACR FORUM. J Am Coll Radiol 1(1):33–39, 2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rubin DL: Informatics in radiology: measuring and improving quality in radiology: meeting the challenge with informatics. Radiographics 31(6):1511–1527, 2011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nagy PG: Using informatics to improve the quality of radiology. Appl Radiol 46:9–14, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kohli MD, Warnock M, Daly M, Toland C, Meenan C, Nagy PG: Building blocks for a clinical imaging informatics environment. J Digit Imaging 27(2):174–181, 2014

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Nagy P, Warnock M, Daly M, Rehm J, Ehlers K: Radtracker: a web-based open-source issue tracking tool. J Digit Imaging 15(Suppl 1):114–119, 2002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rybkin AV, Wilson M: A web-based flexible communication system in radiology. J Digit Imaging 24(5):890–896, 2011

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Meenan CD: evaluation of a long-term online quality control management system in radiology. SIIM 2012 Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, 2012

  10. Nagy PG, Pierce B, Otto M, Safdar NM: Quality control management and communication between radiologists and technologists. J Am Coll Radiol 5:759–765, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. http://www.peervue.com/qics_overview.htm, accessed 10 September 2014

  12. Dunnick NR, Glenn LW, Hillman BJ, Lau LS, Lexa FJ, Weinreb JC, Wilcox P: Quality improvement in radiology: white paper report of the Sun Valley Group meeting. J Am Coll Radiol 3:544–549, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cascade PN: Quality improvement in diagnostic radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 154:1117–1120, 1990

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kruskal JB, Yam CS, Sosna J, Hallett DT, Milliman YJ, Kressel HY: Implementation of online radiology quality assurance reporting system for performance improvement: initial evaluation. Radiology 241(2):518–527, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. White C: Doctors mistrust systems for reporting medical mistakes. BMJ 329:12–13, 2004

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Fitzgerald R: Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking. Eur Radiol 15(8):1760–1767, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey L. Sunshine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Golnari, P., Forsberg, D., Rosipko, B. et al. Online Error Reporting for Managing Quality Control Within Radiology. J Digit Imaging 29, 301–308 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-015-9820-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-015-9820-6

Keywords

Navigation