Advertisement

Emergency Radiology

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 399–406 | Cite as

Reporting of CT cervical spine after office hours by radiology trainees—analysis of discrepancy rates and RADPEER scores

  • Yet Yen Yan
  • Jenn Nee Khoo
  • Tien Jin Tan
  • Joe Francis
  • Le Roy Chong
  • Elizabeth Hui-Ying Chan
Original Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To review the errors made by radiology trainees in the reporting of cervical spine CTs (CCT) and to compare the discrepancy rates between the stages of training.

Methods

All CCTs reported by trainees after office hours between January 2015 and December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed by a team of five musculoskeletal consultants with experience ranging between 7 and 15 years. Discrepancies between the provisional report by the trainee and the findings by the musculoskeletal consultants were graded according to the RADPEER scoring system. Sensitivity and specificity of the trainees were assessed.

Results

Of 254 CCT provisional reports, there were 12 (4.7%) discrepancies, of which 5 (2.0%) discrepancies were likely to be clinically significant. We found a clinically significant difference between the stage of training of the trainee and RADPEER score (P = 0.023). The sensitivity and specificity of the senior radiology trainees were 97.0 and 98.1%, respectively, and that of the junior radiology trainees were 80 and 98.0% respectively (P = 0.039). Conditions misinterpreted as fractures include degenerative changes (n = 2) and nutrient vessel (n = 1). Other missed abnormalities include ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (n = 1), fracture of the foramen transversarium (n = 2), vertebral body fractures (n = 2), articular facet fractures (n = 2), and transverse process fractures (n = 2).

Conclusion

Cervical spine CTs performed after office hours can be safely interpreted by senior radiology trainees to a reasonable degree, although a targeted intervention to improve diagnostic performance of junior radiology trainees may be of clinical benefit.

Keywords

CT Cervical spine Education Trainee 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Hashem R, Evans CC, Farrokhyar F, Kahnamoui K (2009) Plain radiography does not add any clinically significant advantage to multidetector row computed tomography in diagnosing cervical spine injuries in blunt trauma patients. J Trauma 66(2):423–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gonzalez-Beicos A, Nunez DB Jr (2009) Role of multidetector computed tomography in the assessment of cervical spine trauma. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 30(3):159–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Como JJ, Diaz JJ, Dunham CM, Chiu WC, Duane TM, Capella JM, Holevar MR, Khwaja KA, Mayglothling JA, Shapiro MB, Winston ES (2009) Practice management guidelines for identification of cervical spine injuries following trauma: update from the eastern association for the surgery of trauma practice management guidelines committee. J Trauma 67(3):651–659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sheikh K, Belfi LM, Sharma R, Baad M, Sanelli PC (2012) Evaluation of acute cervical spine imaging based on ACR Appropriateness Criteria(R). Emerg Radiol 19(1):11–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daffner RH (2012) ACR Appropriateness Criteria on suspected spine trauma. http://www.acr.org. Accessed 7 January 2018
  6. 6.
    Walters BC, Hadley MN, Hurlbert RJ, Aarabi B, Dhall SS, Gelb DE, Harrigan MR, Rozelle CJ, Ryken TC, Theodore N, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Congress of Neurological Surgeons (2013) Guidelines for the management of acute cervical spine and spinal cord injuries: 2013 update. Neurosurgery 60(Suppl 1):82–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duane TM, Young A, Mayglothling J, Wilson SP, Weber WF, Wolfe LG, Ivatury RR (2013) CT for all or selective approach? Who really needs a cervical spine CT after blunt trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 74(4):1098–1101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen KL, Clement CM, Lesiuk H, De Maio VJ et al (2001) The Canadian C-spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. JAMA 286(15):1841–1848CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brennan TA, Sox CM, Burstin HR (1996) Relation between negligent adverse events and the outcomes of medical-malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med 335(26):1963–1967CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Velmahos GC, Fili C, Vassiliu P, Nicolaou N, Radin R, Wilcox A (2001) Around-the-clock attending radiology coverage is essential to avoid mistakes in the care of trauma patients. Am Surg 67(12):1175–1177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldberg-Stein S, Frigini LA, Long S, Metwalli Z, Nguyen XV, Parker M, Abujudeh H (2017) ACR RADPEER committee white paper with 2016 updates: revised scoring system, new classifications, self-review, and subspecialized reports. J Am Coll Radiol 14(8):1080–1086CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davenport MS, Ellis JH, Khalatbari SH, Myles JD, Klein KA (2010) Effect of work hours, caseload, shift type, and experience on resident call performance. Acad Radiol 17(7):921–927CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Briggs RH, Rowbotham E, Johnstone AL, Chalmers AG (2010) Provisional reporting of polytrauma CT by on-call radiology registrars. Is it safe? Clin Radiol 65(8):616–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu MZ, McInnes MD, Macdonald DB, Kielar AZ, Duigenan S (2014) CT in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of interpretation discrepancy rates. Radiology 270(3):717–735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walls J, Hunter N, Brasher PM, Ho SG (2009) The DePICTORS Study: discrepancies in preliminary interpretation of CT scans between on-call residents and staff. Emerg Radiol 16(4):303–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruchman RB, Jaeger J, Wiggins EF 3rd, Seinfeld S, Thakral V, Bolla S 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):523–526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cooper VF, Goodhartz LA, Nemcek AA Jr, Ryu RK (2008) Radiology resident interpretations of on-call imaging studies: the incidence of major discrepancies. Acad Radiol 15(9):1198–1204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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(9):1155–1160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hillier JC, Tattersall DJ, Gleeson FV (2004) Trainee reporting of computed tomography examinations: do they make mistakes and does it matter? Clin Radiol 59(2):159–162; discussion 157-158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Agostini C, Durieux M, Milot L, Kamaoui I, Floccard B, Allaouchiche B, Pilleul F (2008) Value of double reading of whole body CT in polytrauma patients. J Radiol 89(3 Pt 1):325–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mellado JM, Larrosa R, Martin J, Yanguas N, Solanas S, Cozcolluela MR (2011) MDCT of variations and anomalies of the neural arch and its processes: part 2—articular processes, transverse processes, and high cervical spine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(1):W114–W121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Emergency Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyChangi General HospitalSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations