Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of the article is to characterize the diagnostic errors in abdominopelvic CT interpretation through review of radiology report addenda.
Methods
We searched abdominopelvic CT reports for the word “addendum” over a nearly seven-year period. Addenda were reviewed to identify those reporting a diagnostic error. Cases were characterized by a spectrum of features.
Results
709 addenda describing 785 diagnostic errors were identified, representing approximately 0.5% of searched reports. 84.1% were a new finding, 5.1% an upgrade in severity of an originally reported finding, 3.9% a downgrade in severity, and 6.9% other modification. The most common anatomic sites, as well as the most common missed abnormality per site, were vasculature (9.8%, atherosclerosis/thrombus), abdominal wall (8.3%, ventral hernia), bone [7.4%, osseous lesion (not clearly benign)], kidney [6.9%, renal lesion (not clearly benign)], liver (6.1%, steatosis), and ureter (5.1%, calculus). Of 209 addenda providing a reason for the change, 30.6% related to comparison with prior imaging, 22.5% additional surgical history, 13.4% referrer request for re-review, 8.6% additional signs, symptoms, or lab abnormality, 8.6% additional known diagnosis, 5.7% attention to patient gender, 5.3% multi-planar reconstructions, and 5.3% consultation with other radiologist.
Conclusion
Missed findings rather than misinterpretations of detected abnormalities were the most common reason for abdominopelvic CT report addenda. Awareness of the most common misses by anatomic location may help guide quality assurance initiatives. A wide variety of contributing factors were identified. Informatics and workflow optimization may be warranted to facilitate radiologists’ access to all available patient-related data, as well as communication with other physicians, and thereby help reduce diagnostic errors.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH (2015) Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. Radiographics 35(6):1668–1676
Brigham LR, Mansouri M, Abujudeh HH (2015) JOURNAL CLUB: Radiology Report Addenda: a self-report approach to error identification, quantification, and classification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(6):1230–1239
Garland LH (1949) On the scientific evaluation of diagnostic procedures. Radiology 52(3):309–328
Ashman CJ, Yu JS, Wolfman D (2000) Satisfaction of search in osteoradiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(2):541–544
Donald JJ, Barnard SA (2012) Common patterns in 558 diagnostic radiology errors. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 56(2):173–178
Siegle RL, Baram EM, Reuter SR, et al. (1998) Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals. Acad Radiol 5(3):148–154
Abujudeh HH, Boland GW, Kaewlai R, et al. (2010) Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. Eur Radiol 20(8):1952–1957
Borgstede JP, Lewis RS, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH (2004) RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J Am Coll Radiol 1(1):59–65
Soffa DJ, Lewis RS, Sunshine JH, Bhargavan M (2004) Disagreement in interpretation: a method for the development of benchmarks for quality assurance in imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 1(3):212–217
Quekel LG, Kessels AG, Goei R, van Engelshoven JM (1999) Miss rate of lung cancer on the chest radiograph in clinical practice. Chest 115(3):720–724
Kundel HL (1989) Perception errors in chest radiography. Semin Respir Med 10(3):203–210
Berlin L (2014) Radiologic errors, past, present and future. Diagnosis 1(1):79–84
Funding
This study did not receive funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None.
Disclosures
None.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
The requirement for written informed consent was waived by the IRB.
Additional information
The NYU School of Medicine Institutional Review Board approved this study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rosenkrantz, A.B., Bansal, N.K. Diagnostic errors in abdominopelvic CT interpretation: characterization based on report addenda. Abdom Radiol 41, 1793–1799 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0741-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0741-8