Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Musculoskeletal Outside Interpretation (MOI-RADS): an automated quality assurance tool to prospectively track discrepancies in second-opinion interpretations in musculoskeletal imaging

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To implement an automated quality assurance tool to prospectively track discrepancies in musculoskeletal (MSK) exams submitted for second-opinion radiology interpretation at a tertiary center.

Methods

From 2013 to 2020, a standardized template was included in re-interpretation MSK reports, and a concordance assessment compared with primary interpretation was assigned. Analysis of standardized template implementation and discordance rates was performed. Of the re-interpretations that demonstrated likely clinically relevant discordance, a sample was randomly selected and the EMR was reviewed to evaluate the impact on patient care and change in medical management.

Results

A total of 1052 re-interpretations were identified using the standardized template. Services with higher requests for second-opinion interpretation were oncology (n = 351, 33%) and orthopedic surgery (n = 255, 24%). Overall utilization rate of the template was 65% with marked decreased during the last year (22% rate). In comparison to the primary report, there was a 30% discordance rate (n = 309) with 18% (n = 184) classified as likely clinically relevant. From the subset of discrepancies that could be clinically relevant, there was a change in management in 63% of the cases (19/30) with the re-interpretation ultimately proving correct in 80% of the cases (24/30).

Conclusion

Implementation of a quality assurance tool embedded in the radiology workflow of second-opinion interpretations can facilitate the analysis of patient care impact; however, stricter implementation is necessary. Oncologic studies were the most common indication for re-interpretations. Although the primary and second interpretations in the majority of cases were in agreement, subspecialty MSK radiology interpretation was shown to be more accurate than primary interpretations and impacted clinical management in cases of discrepancy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Strosberg C, Gibbs J, Braswell D, Leslie RR, Messina J, Centeno BA, et al. Second opinion reviews for cancer diagnoses in anatomic pathology: a comprehensive cancer center’s experience. Anticancer Res. 2018;38:2989–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zan E, Yousem DM, Carone M, Lewin JS. Second-opinion consultations in neuroradiology. Radiology. 2010;255:135–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Loevner LA, Sonners AI, Schulman BJ, Slawek K, Weber RS, Rosenthal DI, et al. Reinterpretation of cross-sectional images in patients with head and neck cancer in the setting of a multidisciplinary cancer center. Am J Neuroradiol. 2002;23:1622–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chalian M, Del Grande F, Thakkar RS, Jalali SF, Chhabra A, Carrino JA. Second-opinion subspecialty consultations in musculoskeletal radiology. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:1217–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Eakins C, Ellis WD, Pruthi S, Johnson DP, Hernanz-Schulman M, Yu C, et al. Second opinion interpretations by specialty radiologists at a pediatric hospital: rate of disagreement and clinical implications. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:916–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rozenberg A, Kenneally BE, Abraham JA, Strogus K, Roedl JB, Morrison WB, et al. Second opinions in orthopedic oncology imaging: can fellowship training reduce clinically significant discrepancies? Skeletal Radiol. 2019;48:143–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rozenberg A, Kenneally BE, Abraham JA, Strogus K, Roedl JB, Morrison WB, et al. Clinical impact of second-opinion musculoskeletal subspecialty interpretations during a multidisciplinary orthopedic oncology conference. J Am Coll Radiol [Internet]. Elsevier Inc. 2017;14:931–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Khoshpouri P, Khoshpouri P, Yousem K, Yousem DM. How do American radiology institutions deal with second opinion consultations on outside studies? Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214:144–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. DiPiro PJ, van Sonnenberg E, Tumeh SS, Ros PR. Volume and impact of second-opinion consultations by radiologists at a tertiary care cancer center: Data. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:1430–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307:1513–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Torok CM, Lee C, Nagy P, Yousem DM, Lewin JS. Neuroradiology second opinion consultation service: assessment of duplicative imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:1096–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Loughrey GJ, Carrington BM, Anderson H, Dobson MJ, Lo Ying Ping F. The value of specialist oncological radiology review of cross-sectional imaging. Clin Radiol. 1999;54:149–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wechsler RJ, Spettell CM, Kurtz AB, Lev-Toaff S, Halpern EJ, Nazarian LN, et al. Effects of training and experience in interpretation of emergency body CT scans’ computed tomography. Radiology. 1996;199:717–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Karmazyn B, Wanner MR, Marine MB, Tilmans L, Jennings SG, Hibbard RA. The added value of a second read by pediatric radiologists for outside skeletal surveys. Pediatr Radiol. 2019;49:203–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Borgstede JP, Lewis RS, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH. RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J Am Coll Radiol. 2004;1:59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zafar HM, Chadalavada SC, Kahn CE, Cook TS, Sloan CE, Lalevic D, et al. Code abdomen: an assessment coding scheme for abdominal imaging findings possibly representing cancer. J Am Coll Radiol [Internet]. 2015;12:947–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2015.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street 1 Silverstein Radiology, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Maria A. Bedoya, Andrew S. Chi & Tessa S. Cook

  2. Colorado Springs Radiologists, Centura Penrose St. Francis Hospital, Colorado Springs, CO, USA

    Asheesh K. Harsha

  3. Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center, Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA

    Seong Cheol Oh

Authors
  1. Maria A. Bedoya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew S. Chi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Asheesh K. Harsha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seong Cheol Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tessa S. Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria A. Bedoya.

Ethics declarations

This study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at our hospital and was performed in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bedoya, M.A., Chi, A.S., Harsha, A.K. et al. Musculoskeletal Outside Interpretation (MOI-RADS): an automated quality assurance tool to prospectively track discrepancies in second-opinion interpretations in musculoskeletal imaging. Skeletal Radiol 50, 723–730 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03601-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03601-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation