Abstract
The value of obtaining second-opinion interpretations by specialty radiologists has been established. In pediatric radiology, this has primarily been explored in general terms, comparing tertiary pediatric radiologists’ interpretations to referral reads. In adults, second reads by subspecialty radiologists have been shown to yield changes in patient management, including in neuroradiology, musculoskeletal radiology and oncological radiology. Here, we examine second-opinion reads by pediatric radiologists by reviewing the pediatric and adult subspecialty literature. We also present our experience in providing subspecialty outside reads, summarizing lessons learned in implementing a system for outside interpretations into a pediatric radiology practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berlin L (2002) Malpractice issues in radiology: curbstone consultation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:1353–1359
Institute of Medicine (U.S.) Committee on the Learning Health Care System in America (2013) Best care at lower cost: the path to continuously learning health care in America. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Eakins C, Ellis WD, Pruthi S et al (2012) Second opinion interpretations by specialty radiologists at a pediatric hospital: rate of disagreement and clinical implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:916–920
Karmazyn B, Wanner MR, Marine MB et al (2019) The added value of a second read by pediatric radiologists for outside skeletal surveys. Pediatr Radiol 49:203–209
Hatzoglou V, Omuro AM, Haque S et al (2016) Second-opinion interpretations of neuroimaging studies by oncologic neuroradiologists can help reduce errors in cancer care. Cancer 122:2708–2714
Chalian M, Del Grande F, Thakkar RS et al (2016) Second-opinion subspecialty consultations in musculoskeletal radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:1217–1221
Robinson JD, Linnau KF, Hippe DS et al (2018) Accuracy of outside radiologists’ reports of computed tomography exams of emergently transferred patients. Emerg Radiol 25:169–173
Loughrey GJ, Carrington BM, Anderson H et al (1999) The value of specialist oncological radiology review of cross-sectional imaging. Clin Radiol 54:149–154
Carter BW, Erasmus JJ, Truong MT et al (2017) Quality and value of subspecialty reinterpretation of thoracic CT scans of patients referred to a tertiary cancer center. J Am Coll Radiol 14:1109–1118
Zan E, Yousem DM, Carone M, Lewin JS (2010) Second-opinion consultations in neuroradiology. Radiology 255:135–141
Lysack JT, Hoy M, Hudon ME et al (2013) Impact of neuroradiologist second opinion on staging and management of head and neck cancer. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 42:1–7
Lu MT, Tellis WM, Avrin DE (2013) Providing formal reports for outside imaging and the rate of repeat imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:107–110
Rosenkrantz AB, Glover M, Kang SK et al (2018) Volume and coverage of secondary imaging interpretation under Medicare, 2003 to 2016. J Am Coll Radiol 15:1394–1400
Shaikh S, Bafana R, Halabi SS (2016) Concierge and second-opinion radiology: review of practices. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 45:111–114
American College of Radiology (2016) Q and A for the Nov-Dec 2016 issue of the ACR radiology coding source. https://www.acr.org/Advocacy-and-Economics/Coding-Source/ACR-Radiology-Coding-Source-Nov-Dec-2016/Q-and-A. Accessed 13 May 2019
(2019) Medicare claims processing manual, Chapter 13, Section 100. https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/clm104c13.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2019
Duszak R (2005) Another unpaid second opinion. J Am Coll Radiol 2:793–794
Bender CE, Bansal S, Wolfman D, Parikh JR (2019) 2018 ACR Commission on human resources workforce survey. J Am Coll Radiol 16:508–512
U.S. Census Bureau (2011) Age and sex composition: 2010. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2019
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sammer, M.B.K., Kan, J.H. Providing second-opinion interpretations of pediatric imaging: embracing the call for value-added medicine. Pediatr Radiol 51, 523–528 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-019-04596-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-019-04596-x