Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utility of contemporaneous dual read in the setting of emergency teleradiology reporting

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Emergency radiology requires rapid and accurate interpretation of imaging examinations. Missed findings may lead to adverse outcomes. Double reporting may be used to minimize errors. Limited contemporaneous double reporting may be most efficient and cost-effective, but no data exists. This study is intended to examine the benefits of double reading and identify examinations where this would be most useful.

Methods

In this study, dual reporting was conducted in a parallel reading environment in a teleradiology practice for 3779 radiological procedures performed at two radiology centers in the USA over a period of 4 months. Discrepancies between reads were scored using the ACR peer review scoring system and grouped by modality and body part. Errors were tabulated across the study types, followed by identification of statistically significant differences. The interaction between image number and odds of an error was ascertained.

Results

In 145 instances (3.8%; 95 % CI, 3.2–4.4%), double reporting identified errors, leading to report modification. Study type was significantly related to error frequency (p = 0.0001), with higher than average frequencies of error seen for CT abdomen and pelvis and MRI head or spine, but lower than average for CT head, CT spine, and ultrasound. Image number was positively associated with error odds, but was not independently significant in a joint logistic regression model that included study type.

Conclusion

Dual reporting identifies missed findings in about 1 of 25 emergency studies. This benefit varies substantially across study types and limited double reporting, merits further investigation as a cost-effective practice improvement strategy.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baker SR (2003) Medical errors, quality, and safety: emergency radiology’s urgent matter. Emerg Radiol 10:69–70. doi:10.1007/s10140-003-0291-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Briggs GM, Flynn PA, Worthington M, Rennie I, McKinstry CS (2008) The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: is there added value? Clin Radiol 63:791–795. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2007.12.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fitzgerald R (2001) Error in radiology. Clin Radiol. doi:10.1053/crad.2001.0858

    Google Scholar 

  4. Murphy R, Slater A, Uberoi R, Bungay H, Ferrett C (2010) Reduction of perception error by double reporting of minimal preparation CT colon. Br J Radiol 83:331–335. doi:10.1259/bjr/65634575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Leslie A, Virjee JP (2002) Detection of colorectal carcinoma on double contrast barium enema when double reporting is routinely performed: an audit of current practice. Clin Radiol 57:184–187. doi:10.1053/crad.2001.0832

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liston JC, Dall BJG (2003) Can the NHS Breast Screening Programme afford not to double read screening mammograms? Clin Radiol 58:474–477. doi:10.1016/S0009-9260(03)00063-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Markus JB, Somers S, O’Malley BP, Stevenson GW (1990) Double-contrast barium enema studies: effect of multiple reading on perception error. Radiology 175:155–156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kalyanpur A, Weinberg J, Neklesa V, Brink JA, Forman HP (2003) Emergency radiology coverage: technical and clinical feasibility of an international teleradiology model. Emerg Radiol 10:115–118. doi:10.1007/s10140-003-0284-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wagner AL (2004) After-hours coverage: problems and solutions. J Am Coll Radiol 1:351–355. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2004.01.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Agrawal A, Agrawal A, Pandit M, Kalyanpur A (2011) Systematic survey of discrepancy rates in an international teleradiology service. Emerg Radiol 18:23–29. doi:10.1007/s10140-010-0899-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bradley WG (2004) Offshore teleradiology. JACR Journal of the American College of Radiology. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2003.12.043

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kalyanpur A, Neklesa VP, Pham DT, Forman HP, Stein ST, Brink JA (2004) Implementation of an international teleradiology staffing model. Radiology 232:415–419. doi:10.1148/radiol.2322021555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Agrawal A, Kalyanpur A (2012) Synchronizing computer clocks: the challenge of multiple time zones in teleradiology. Indian J Radiol Imaging 22:240

  14. Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Prevent cuts to medical imaging. Available at http://www.snmmi.org/files

  15. Duszak R Jr. (2012) Medical imaging: is the growth boom over? Neiman report no. 1. Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute website. www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/Research/Brief_01/PolicyBrief-HPI092012.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2013

  16. Halsted MJ, Donnelly LF, Strife JL (2005) Radiologist recruitment and retention:how can we improve? J Am Coll Radiol 2(4):p369–p375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Arl VM, Allen B, Campbell SC, Carlson RA, Dunnick NR, Fletcher TB, Hanks JD, Hauser JB, Moorefield JM, Taxin RN, Thrall JH (2005) Report of the ACR task force on international teleradiology. J Am Coll Radiol 2:121–125. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2004.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Husby JA, Espeland A, Kalyanpur A, Brocker C, Haldorsen IS (2011) Double reading of radiological examinations in Norway. Acta Radiol 52:516–521. doi:10.1258/ar.2011.100347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Silva E, Breslau J, Barr RM, Liebscher LA, Bohl M, Hoffman T, Boland GWL, Sherry C, Kim W, Shah SS, Tilkin M (2013) ACR white paper on teleradiology practice: a report from the Task Force on Teleradiology Practice. Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 10:575–585. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2013.03.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jackson VP, Cushing T, Abujudeh HH, Borgstede JP, Chin KW, Grimes CK, Larson DB, Larson PA, Pyatt RS, Thorwarth WT (2009) RADPEER scoring white paper. J Am Coll Radiol. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2008.06.011

    Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA, Maccarty RL, Welch TJ, Ilstrup DM, Ahlquist DA (2003) Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 125:311–319. doi:10.1016/S0016-5085(03)00894-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lian K, Bharatha A, Aviv RI, Symons SP (2011) Interpretation errors in CT angiography of the head and neck and the benefit of double reading. AJNR 32:2132–2135. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2678

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Borgstede JP, Lewis RS, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH (2004) RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J Am Coll Radiol. doi:10.1016/S1546-1440(03)00002-4

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mucci B, Murray H, Downie A, Osborne K (2013) Interrater variation in scoring radiological discrepancies. Br J Radiol 86(1028). doi:10.1259/bjr.20130245

  25. Roszler MH (1995) Radiology resident interpretationof emergency department radiographs. Emerg Radiol 2:45. doi:10.1007/BF02616389

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere thanks to Mr. Ravikumar MN and the QA team of Teleradiology Solutions for their efforts towards archiving of data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Teleradiology Solutions, 12B Sriram Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, 110054, India

    Anjali Agrawal

  2. CSIR Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology, Delhi University, Mall Road, North Campus, Delhi, 110007, India

    D B Koundinya & Anurag Agrawal

  3. Teleradiology Solutions, #7G, Opposite Graphite India, Whitefield, Bangalore, Karnataka, 560048, India

    Jayadeepa Srinivas Raju & Arjun Kalyanpur

Authors
  1. Anjali Agrawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D B Koundinya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jayadeepa Srinivas Raju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anurag Agrawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arjun Kalyanpur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anjali Agrawal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Sources of support

None.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Agrawal, A., Koundinya, D.B., Raju, J.S. et al. Utility of contemporaneous dual read in the setting of emergency teleradiology reporting. Emerg Radiol 24, 157–164 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-016-1465-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-016-1465-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation