Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the performance of on-call radiology residents in interpreting alone brain and spine MRI studies performed after hours, to describe their mistakes, and to identify influencing factors that increased the occurrence of errors.
Methods
A total of 328 MRI examinations performed during a 13-month period (from December 1, 2019, to January 1, 2021) were prospectively included. Discrepancies between the preliminary interpretation of on-call radiology residents and the final reports of attending neuroradiologists were noted and classified according to a three-level score: level 1 (perfect interpretation or minor correction), level 2 (important correction without immediate change in patient management), or level 3 (major correction with immediate change in patient management). Categorical data were compared using Fisher’s exact test.
Results
The overall discrepancy rate (level-2 and level-3 errors) was 16%; the rate of major discrepancies (only level-3 errors) was 5.5%. The major-discrepancy rate of second-year residents, when compared with that of senior residents, was significantly higher (p = 0.02). Almost all of the level-3 errors concerned cerebrovascular pathology. The most common level-2 errors involved undescribed aneurysms. We found no significant difference in the major-discrepancy rate regarding time since the beginning of the shift.
Conclusions
The great majority of examinations were correctly interpreted. The rate of major discrepancies in our study was comparable to the data in the literature, and there was no adverse clinical outcome. The level of residency has an effect on the rate of serious errors in residents’ reports.
Key Points
• The rate of major discrepancies between preliminary MRI interpretations by on-call radiology residents and final reports by attending neuroradiologists is low, and comparable to discrepancy rates reported for head CT interpretations.
• The youngest residents made significantly more serious errors when compared to senior residents.
• There was no adverse clinical outcome in patient morbidity as a result of an initial misdiagnosis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- CT:
-
Computed tomography
- MRI:
-
Magnetic resonance imaging
References
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 Probl Diagn Radiol 48(1):4–9. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.12.010
Yaniv G, Mozes O, Greenberg G, Bakon M, Hoffmann C (2013) Common sites and etiologies of residents’ misinterpretation of head CT scans in the emergency department of a level I trauma center. Isr Med Assoc J 15(5):221–225
Filippi CG, Schneider B, Burbank HN, Alsofrom GF, Linnell G, Ratkovits B (2008) Discrepancy rates of radiology resident interpretations of on-call neuroradiology MR imaging studies. Radiology. 249(3):972–979. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2493071543
Cooper VF, Goodhartz LA, Nemcek AA, Ryu RK (2008) Radiology resident interpretations of on-call imaging studies. Acad Radiol 15(9):1198–1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2008.02.011
Mellnick V, Raptis C, McWilliams S, Picus D, Wahl R (2016) On-call radiology resident discrepancies: categorization by patient location and severity. J Am Coll Radiol 13(10):1233–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.04.020
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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(3):523–526. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2307
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. Academic Radiology. 15(10):1217–1226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2008.03.017
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. Journal of the American College of Radiology. janv 12(1):95–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2014.08.005
Walls J, Hunter N, Brasher PMA, Ho SGF (2009) The DePICTORS Study: discrepancies in preliminary interpretation of CT scans between on-call residents and staff. Emerg Radiol 16(4):303–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-009-0795-9
Erly WK, Berger WG, Krupinski E, Seeger JF, Guisto JA (2002) Radiology resident evaluation of head CT scan orders in the emergency department. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 23(1):103–107
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(1):124–129
Filippi CG, Meyer RE, Cauley K et al (2010) The misinterpretation rates of radiology residents on emergent neuroradiology magnetic resonance (MR) angiogram studies: correlation with level of residency training. Emerg Radiol 17(1):45–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-009-0820-z
Ruma J, Klein KA, Chong S et al (2011) Cross-sectional examination interpretation discrepancies between on-call diagnostic radiology residents and subspecialty faculty radiologists: analysis by imaging modality and subspecialty. J Am Coll Radiol 8(6):409–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2011.01.012
Tieng N, Grinberg D, Li SF (2007) Discrepancies in interpretation of ED body computed tomographic scans by radiology residents. Am J Emerg Med 25(1):45–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2006.04.008
Seltzer S, Hessel S, Herman P, Swensson R, Sheriff C (1981) Resident film interpretations and staff review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 137(1):129–133. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.137.1.129
Goradia D, Blackmore CC, Talner LB, Bittles M, Meshberg E (2005) Predicting radiology resident errors in diagnosis of cervical spine fractures. Academic Radiology. 12(7):6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2005.04.004
Caranci F, Tedeschi E, Leone G et al (2015) Errors in neuroradiology. Radiol Med 120(9):795–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-015-0564-7
Carney E, Kempf J, DeCarvalho V, Yudd A, Nosher J (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(2):367–373. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.2.1810367
Patel AG, Pizzitola VJ, Johnson CD, Zhang N, Patel MD (2020) Radiologists make more errors interpreting off-hours body CT studies during overnight assignments as compared with daytime assignments. Radiology 297(2):374–379. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020201558
Verdoorn JT, Hunt CH, Luetmer MT et al (2014) Increasing neuroradiology exam volumes on-call do not result in increased major discrepancies in primary reads performed by residents. Open Neuroimag J 8(1):11–15. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874440001408010011
Lee CS, Nagy PG, Weaver SJ, Newman-Toker DE (2013) Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(3):611–617. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10375
Maskell G (2019) Error in radiology—where are we now? BJR 92(1096):20180845. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20180845
Elliott J, Williamson K (2020) The radiology impact of healthcare errors during shift work. Radiography 26(3):248–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2019.12.007
Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM, Kim J (2010) Long radiology workdays reduce detection and accommodation accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol 7(9):698–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2010.03.004
Gaba DM, Howard SK (2002) Fatigue among clinicians and the safety of patients. N Engl J Med 347(16):1249–1255. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa020846
Itri JN, Kim W, Scanlon MH (2011) Orion: A web-based application designed to monitor resident and fellow performance on-call. J Digit Imaging 24(5):897–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-011-9360-7
Funding
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Guarantor
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Stéphane KREMER, MD, PhD.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was not required for this study because patient consent was waived.
Approval from the institutional animal care committee was not required (not concerned).
Ethical approval
Institutional review board approval was not required because patient consent was waived in our study.
Methodology
• Prospective
• Observational
• Performed at one institution
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
Salca, D., Lersy, F., Willaume, T. et al. Evaluation of neuroradiology emergency MRI interpretations: low discrepancy rates between on-call radiology residents’ preliminary interpretations and neuroradiologists’ final reports. Eur Radiol 32, 7260–7269 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08789-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08789-1