Abstract
Purpose
Benefits of overnight attending radiologist final reports are debated, often stating low resident discrepancy rates, usually assessed retrospectively. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of overnight final reporting on the recall rates for patients in the emergency department (ED) receiving overnight imaging.
Methods
Retrospective matched cohorts of two separate years prior (prior-16 and prior-17) and 1 year after (post-18) introduction of overnight attending radiologist final reporting. Patients receiving imaging between 22:00 and 07:00 h and returned to ED within 48 h of initial visit discharge were electronically identified. String matching identified return visits possibly related to imaging completed on first visit. Identified return visit notes were scored by three observers individually. Unclear and discrepant cases were resolved by consensus meeting, using full patient charts where needed. Incidences were provided and logistic regression analysis defined if coverage model was a predictor for recall. Odds ratios were calculated.
Results
ED patient count with imaging completed overnight in prior-16 was 9200, in prior-17 was 9543, and in post-18 was 9992. The number of overnight imaging studies performed was respectively 13,883, 14,463, and 15,112. Imaging-related ED recalls were respectively 54, 61, and 7, a decrease with the new coverage model of 89% to true and at least 90% of expected recalls.Logistic regression demonstrated that coverage model was a significant predictor of ED recalls with chi-square of 59.86 and p < 0.001, an R2 of 0.03 (Hosmer and Lemeshow). Compared to post-18, ED patients had an odds ratio of 8.42 (prior-16) and 9.18 (prior-17) to be called back to ED.
Conclusion
Overnight final reporting significantly decreases ED recalls for patients receiving diagnostic imaging overnight. While numbers are low even prior to rollout, the number should be minimized wherever possible to diminish patient anxiety and discomfort, reduce ED overcrowding and expedite definitive management.
Key messages/what this paper adds
Section 1: What is already known on this subject
• Radiology resident preliminary report discrepancy rates are low.
• Overnight attending radiologist coverage is a model increasingly applied in academic and large non-academic centers.
• Patient recalls to the ED are a burden to the patient and impact patient throughput in (over)crowded EDs.
Section 2: What this study adds
• First study to look at the impact of overnight attending final reports on the recall rate for ED patients with overnight imaging performed.
• While absolute numbers are low, there is a significant decrease in patients returning to ED for imaging related issues after introducing overnight attending coverage.
• Resident autonomy can be preserved and training enhanced while increasing patient safety and comfort
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Upon reasonable request.
References
Coleman S, Holalkere NS, O’Malley J et al (2016) Radiology 24/7 in-house attending coverage: do benefits outweigh cost? Curr Problems Diagnostic Radiology 45:241–246. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.02.007
Towbin AJ, Iyer SB, Brown J, Varadarajan K, Perry LA, Larson DB (2013) Practice policy and quality initiatives: decreasing variability in turnaround time for radiographic studies from the emergency department. Radiographics 33:361–371. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.332125738
Bruno MA, Duncan JR, Bierhals AJ, Tappouni R (2018) Overnight resident versus 24-hour attending radiologist coverage in academic medical centers. Radiology 289:809–813. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180690
Lam V, Stephenson JA. A retrospective review of registrar out-of-hours reporting in a university hospital: the effect of time and seniority on discrepancy rates. Clin Radiol 2018;73:590.e9–590.e12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2018.01.012
Wildman-Tobriner B, Allen BC, Maxfield CM (2019) Common resident errors when interpreting computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis: a review of types, pitfalls, and strategies for improvement. Curr Problems Diagnostic Radiology 48:4–9. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.12.010
Hanna TN, Loehfelm T, Khosa F, Rohatgi S, Johnson JO (2016) Overnight shift work: factors contributing to diagnostic discrepancies. Emerg Radiology 23:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-015-1355-0
Stevens KJ, Griffiths KL, Rosenberg J, Mahadevan S, Zatz LM, Leung ANC (2008) Discordance rates between preliminary and final radiology reports on cross-sectional imaging studies at a level 1 trauma center. Acad Radiol 15:1217–1226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2008.03.017
Ruutiainen AT, Scanlon MH, Itri JN (2011) Identifying benchmarks for discrepancy rates in preliminary interpretations provided by radiology trainees at an academic institution. J Am Coll Radiol 8:644–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2011.04.003
Chung JH, Strigel RM, Chew AR, Albrecht E, Gunn ML (2009) Overnight resident interpretation of torso CT at a level 1 trauma center an analysis and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 16:1155–1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2009.02.017
Ruchman RB, Jaeger J, Wiggins EF et al (2007) Preliminary radiology resident interpretations versus final attending radiologist interpretations and the impact on patient care in a community Hospital. Am J Roentgenol 189:523–526. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.07.2307
Weinberg BD, Richter MD, Champine JG, Morriss MC, Browning T (2015) Radiology resident preliminary reporting in an independent call environment: multiyear assessment of volume, timeliness, and accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol 12:95–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2014.08.005
Cooper VF, Goodhartz LA, Nemcek AA et al (2008) Radiology resident interpretations of on-call imaging studies the incidence of major discrepancies. Acad Radiol 15:1198–1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2008.02.011
Berner ES, Graber ML (2008) Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. Am J Medicine 121:S2–S23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.01.001
Lal NR, Murray UM, Eldevik OP, Desmond JS (2000) Clinical consequences of misinterpretations of neuroradiologic CT scans by on-call radiology residents. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21:124–129
Yoon LS, Haims AH, Brink JA, Rabinovici R, Forman HP (2002 Jul) Evaluation of an emergency radiology quality assurance program at a level I trauma center: abdominal and pelvic CT studies. Radiology 224(1):42–46. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2241011470
Hillier JC, Tattersall DJ, Gleeson FV (2004) Trainee reporting of computed tomography examinations: do they make mistakes and does it matter? Clin Radiol 59:159–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0009-9260(03)00309-x
Collins J, Gruppen LD, Bailey JE, Bokhari SAJ, Paladin AM, Robbins J, White RD (2014) 24/7/365 in-house radiologist coverage effect on resident education. Acad Radiol 21:842–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2013.10.022
Liberman DB, McCarthy TJ (2019) The cost of callbacks: return visits for diagnostic imaging discrepancies in a pediatric emergency department. Emerg Radiology 26:381–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-019-01681-4
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
Research ethics review was not required because the study met criteria for exemption from such a review based on our institutional process for confirming that the project was deemed improvement in quality and not human subject research.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Code availability
Upon reasonable request.
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
Mughli, R.A., Durrant, E., Baia Medeiros, D.T. et al. Overnight attending radiologist coverage decreases imaging-related emergency department recalls by at least 90%. Emerg Radiol 28, 549–555 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-020-01894-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-020-01894-y