Skip to main content

Definition of Errors in Imaging

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Errors in Imaging
  • 740 Accesses

Abstract

Complex tasks laden with uncertainty predispose to errors and discordant opinions. Thus inter- and intra-reader disagreements reflect in part the inherent difficulty in interpreting medical images, especially if we cannot obtain confirmation of the diagnosis. So we need a working definition of errors in imaging. An error is a missed diagnosis, an inaccurate or incomplete diagnosis, the omission to specify follow-up imaging or additional studies, a suboptimal report, an unacceptable delay in delivering the report to the referring physician, or failure to communicate directly with the referring physician regarding emergencies, and other significant findings (whether urgent or not). The estimated error rate in radiology is 5–30%. Different types of errors may occur simultaneously, and some errors may be propagated for up to several years, before they get discovered. Errors potentially may have devastating consequences both for the patients and the physician who made the error, and thus safety protocols have been proposed and implemented to minimize the occurrence and the adverse impact of errors.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The numbers and percentages in the paper do not add up to 100%, due to typing error?

  2. 2.

    I note the following limitations of this study:

    1. 1.

      Illustrations of recurrent/repeated mistakes were not provided,

    2. 2.

      No information was given about:

      1. (a)

        The number of studies performed before the final diagnosis

      2. (b)

        The reason(s) the patients underwent additional or follow-up imaging, and

      3. (c)

        How the radiologist reached the correct diagnosis? (Was it because of the use of contrast medium, difference in technique, higher quality of the study, and interval enlargement of the lesion, or was it because of another reason?)

  3. 3.

    Clinically significant errors: altering patient management and outcome.

  4. 4.

    The male gender is used generically and it includes the female gender.

References

  1. Kabadi SJ, Krishmaraj A. Strategies for improving the value of the radiology report: a retrospective analysis of errors in formally over-read studies. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:459–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gunderman RB. The true purpose of a radiology report. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15:1450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Eberhardt SC, Heilbrun ME. Radiology report value equation. Radiographics. 2018;38:1888–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ware JB, Saurabh J, Hoang JK, Baker S, Wruble J. Effective radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:838–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wolfe JM, Evans KK, Drew T, Aizenman A, Josephs E. How do radiologists use the human search engine? Radiat Prot Dosim. 2016;169:24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Newman-Toker D. A unified conceptual model for diagnostic errors: underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, and misdiagnosis. Diagnosis. 2014;1:43–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brady AP. Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? Insights Imaging. 2017;8:171–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brady A, Laoide RO, McCarthy P, McDermott R. Discrepancy and error in radiology: concepts, causes and consequences. Ulster Med J. 2012;81:3–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sabih DE, Sabih A, Sabih Q, Khan AN. Image perception and interpretation of abnormalities; can we believe our eyes? Can we do something about it? Insights Imaging. 2011;2:47–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pinto A, Brunese L. Spectrum of diagnostic errors in radiology. World J Radiol. 2010;2:377–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Fitzgerald R. Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:1760–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fitzgerald R. Error in radiology. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:938–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lakhman Y, D’Anastasi M, Micco M, et al. Second-opinion interpretations of gynecologic oncologic MRI examinations by sub-specialized radiologists influence patient care. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:2089–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bruno MA. Our mistakes-the human experience. Video lecture. https://learning.arrs.org/mod/url/view.php?id=400. Accessed 22 Nov 2016.

  15. Bruno MA. 256 shades of gray: uncertainty and diagnostic error in radiology. Diagnosis. 2017;4:149–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Robinson PJ. Radiology’s Achilles’ heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Roentgen image. Br J Radiol. 1997;70:1085–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Berlin L. Medicolegal-malpractice and ethical issues in radiology. Role of the expert witness. AJR. 2015;204:W371.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Berlin L. Defending the “missed” radiographic diagnosis. AJR. 2001;176:317–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Berlin L. Radiologic errors and malpractice: a blurry distinction. AJR. 2007;189:517–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology. Perceptual errors. AJR. 1996;167:587–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Berlin L, Hendrix RW. Perceptual errors and negligence. AJR. 1998;170:863–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Waite S, Scott J, Gale B, Fuchs T, Kolla S, Reede D. Interpretive error in radiology. AJR. 2017;208:739–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bui-Mansfield LT. “Fool me twice”: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors. Video lecture. https://learning.arrs.org/course/view.php?id=518. Accessed 19 Nov 2017.

  24. Rosenkrantz AB, Bansal NK. Diagnostic errors in abdominopelvic CT interpretation: characterization based on report addenda. Abdom Radiol. 2016;41:1793–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH. Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. Radiographics. 2015;35:1668–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Berlin L. Radiologic errors, past, present and future. Diagnosis. 2014;1:79–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim YW, Mansfield LT. Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors. AJR. 2014;202:465–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McCreadie G, Oliver TB. Eight CT lessons that we learned the hard way: an analysis of current patterns of radiological error and discrepancy with particular emphasis on CT. Clin Radiol. 2009;64:491–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Donald JJ, Barnard SA. Common patterns in 558 diagnostic radiology errors. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2012;56:173–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Funaki B, Szymski G, Rosenblum J. Significant on-call misses by radiology residents interpreting computed tomographic studies: perception versus cognition. Emerg Radiol. 1997;4:290–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Renfrew DL, Franken EA Jr, Berbaum KS, Weigelt FH, Abu-Yousef MM. Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference. Radiology. 1992;183:145–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wakeley CJ, Jones AM, Kabala JE, Prince D, Goddard PR. Audit of the value of double reading magnetic resonance imaging films. Br J Radiol. 1995;68:358–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pinto A, Scuderi MG, Daniele S. Errors in radiology: definition and classification. In: Romano L, Pinto A, editors. Errors in radiology. Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. p. 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bechtold RE, Chen MY, Ott DJ, Zagoria RJ, Scharling ES, Wolfman NT, Vining DJ. Interpretation of abdominal CT: analysis of errors and their causes. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1997;21:681–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Loevner LA, Sonners AI, Schulman BJ, et al. Reinterpretation of cross-sectional images in patients with head and neck cancer in the setting of a multidisciplinary cancer center. AJNR. 2002;23:1622–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Owens EJ, Taylor NR, Howlett DC. Perceptual type error in everyday practice. Clin Radiol. 2016;71:593–601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Li F, Sone S, Abe H, MacMahon H, Armato SG 3rd, Doi K. Lung cancers missed at low-dose helical CT screening in a general population: comparison of clinical, histopathologic, and imaging findings. Radiology. 2002;225:673–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Del Ciello A, Franchi P, Contegiacomo A, Cicchetti G, Bonomo L, Larici AR. Missed lung cancer: when, where and why? Diagn Interv Radiol. 2017;23:118–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Lauritzen PM, Stavem K, Andersen JG, et al. Double reading of current chest CT examinations: clinical importance of changes to radiology reports. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:199–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lauritzen PM, Andersen JG, Stokke MV, et al. Radiologist-initiated double reading of abdominal CT: retrospective analysis of the clinical importance of changes to radiology reports. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25:595–603.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Bisset GS III, Crowe J. Diagnostic errors in interpretation of pediatric musculoskeletal radiographs at common injury sites. Pediatr Radiol. 2014;44:552–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Driscoll DO, Halpenny D, Guiney M. Radiological error–an early assessment of departmental radiology discrepancy meetings. Ir Med J. 2012;105:172–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gollub MJ, Panicek DM, Bach AM, Penalver A, Castellino RA. Clinical importance of re-interpretation of body CT scans obtained elsewhere in patients referred for care at a tertiary cancer center. Radiology. 1999;210:109–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Yoon LS, Haims AH, Brink JA, Rabinovici R, Forman HP. Evaluation of an emergency radiology quality assurance program at a level 1 trauma centre: abdominal and pelvic CT studies. Radiology. 2002;224:42–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tilleman EHBM, Phoa SSKS, van Delden OM, et al. Reinterpretation of radiological imaging in patients referred to a tertiary referral centre with a suspected pancreatic or hepatobiliary malignancy: impact on treatment strategy. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:1095–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Carney E, Kempf J, DeCarvallho V, Yudd A, Nosher J. 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. 2003;181:367–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Queckel LG, Kessels AG, Goei R, van Engelshoven JM. Miss rate of lung cancer in the chest radiograph in clinical practice. Chest. 1999;115:720–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Siegle RL, Baram EM, Reuter SR, Clarke EA, Lancaster JL, McMahan CA. Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals. Acad Radiol. 1998;5:148–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Heriot GS, McKelvie P, Pitman AG. Diagnostic errors in patients dying in hospital: radiology’s contribution. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2009;53:188–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Berlin L. Accuracy of diagnostic procedures: has it improved over the past five decades? AJR. 2007;188:1173–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Forrest JV, Friedman PJ. Radiologic errors in patients with lung cancer. West J Med. 1981;134:485–90.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. White CS, Salis AL, Meyer CA. Missed lung cancer on chest radiography and computed tomography: imaging and medicolegal issues. J Thorac Imaging. 1999;14:63–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Chesebro AL, Winkler NS, Birdwell RL, Giess CS. Developing asymmetries at mammography: a multimodality approach to assessment and management. Radiographics. 2016;36:322–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wadha A, Sullivan JR, Gonyo MB. Missed breast cancer: what can we learn? Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2016;45:402–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Korhonen KE, Weinstein SP, McDonald ES, Conant EF. Strategies to increase cancer detection: review of true-positive and false-negative results at digital breast tomosynthesis screening. Radiographics. 2016;36:1954–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Palazzetti V, Guidi F, Ottaviani L, Valeri G, Baldassarre S, Giusepetti GM. Analysis of mammographic diagnostic errors in breast clinics. Radiol Med. 2016;121:828–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Giess CS, Frost EP, Birdwell RL. Interpreting one-view mammographic findings: minimizing call-backs while maximizing cancer detection. Radiographics. 2014;34:928–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Gangi S, Fletcher JG, Nathan MA, et al. Time interval between abnormalities seen on CT and the clinical diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: retrospective review of CT scans obtained before diagnosis. AJR. 2004;182:897–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Garland LH. Studies on the accuracy of diagnostic procedures. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1959;82:25–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Abujudeh HH, Boland GW, Kaewlai R, et al. Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1952–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Robinson PJ, Wilson D, Coral A, Murphy A, Verow P. Variation between experienced observers in the interpretation of accident and emergency radiographs. Br J Radiol. 1999;72:323–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Babiarsz LS, Yousem DM. Quality control in neuroradiology: discrepancies in image interpretation among academic neuroradiologists. AJNR. 2012;33:969–80.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Eisenberg RL. Should “mature” radiologists be put out to pasture? Radiographics. 2016;36:937–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Lum TE, Fairbanks RJ, Pennington EC, Zwemer FL. Profiles in patient safety: misplaced femoral line guidewire and multiple failures to detect the foreign body on chest radiography. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12:658–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Morgan B, Stephenson JA, Griffin Y. Minimising the impact of errors in the interpretation of CT images for surveillance and evaluation of therapy in cancer. Clin Radiol. 2016;71:1083–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Wu MZ, McInnes MD, Macdonald DB, Kielar AZ, Duigenan S. CT in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of interpretation discrepancy rates. Radiology. 2014;270:717–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Graber ML. The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:ii21–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Saber Tehrani AS, Lee HW, Mathews SC, et al. 25 year summary of US malpractice claims for diagnostic errors 1986-2010: an analysis from the National Practitioner Data Bank. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:672–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Wu AW. Medical error: the second victim-the doctor who makes the mistake needs help too. BMJ. 2000;320:726–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Weiss PM. The second victim: effect of medical errors on providers. Grand rounds presentation at All Children’s Hospital Johns Hopkins Medicine, recorded January 31, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Pratt S, Kenney L, Scott SD, Wu AW. How to develop a second victim support program: a toolkit for health care organizations. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2012;38:235–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Gunderman RB, Nyce JM. The tyranny of accuracy in radiologic education. Radiology. 2002;222:297–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Brook OR, O’Connell AM, Thornton E, Eisenberg RL, Mendiratta-Lala M, Kruskal JB. Quality initiatives: anatomy and pathophysiology of errors occurring in clinical radiology practice. Radiographics. 2010;30:1401–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chrysikopoulos, H. (2020). Definition of Errors in Imaging. In: Errors in Imaging. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21103-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21103-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-21102-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-21103-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics