At many academic hospitals, radiology residents provide preliminary interpretations of CT studies performed outside of regular working hours. We examined the rate of discrepancies between resident interpretations and final reports issued by staff. We prospectively obtained 1,756 preliminary reports and corresponding final reports for computed tomography (CT) scans performed on call between November 2006 and March 2007. The overall rate of clinically significant discrepancies (those that would potentially alter the patient’s clinical course prior to issue of the final report) was 2.0%. Major discrepancy rates for abdominal/pelvic, chest, cervical spine and head CT were 4.1%, 2.5%, 1.0% and 0.7%, respectively. Senior residents had fewer major discrepancies compared to their junior colleagues. Time of interpretation was also evaluated, but a statistically significant relationship was not observed. In summary, this study demonstrates a low discrepancy rate between residents and staff radiologists and identifies areas where after-hours service may be further improved.
We sincerely thank Dr. Douglas McKnight from Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia for his valuable clinical insights and also thank the Radiology Transcription department at Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia for their assistance in acquiring the reports analysed in this study.
Carney E, Kempf J, DeCarvalho V et al (2003) Preliminary interpretations of after-hours CT and sonography by radiology residents versus final interpretations by body imaging radiologists at a level 1 trauma center. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:367–373PubMedGoogle Scholar
Ruchman RB, Jaeger J, Wiggins EF 3rd et al (2007) Preliminary radiology resident interpretations versus final attending radiologist interpretations and the impact on patient care in a community hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:523–526. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strub WM, Leach JL, Tomsick T et al (2007) Overnight preliminary head CT interpretations provided by residents: locations of misidentified intracranial hemorrhage. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28:1679–1682. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar