Preliminary Reports in the Emergency Department: Is a Subspecialist Radiologist More Accurate Than a Radiology Resident?

Barton F. Branstetter IV, Matthew B. Morgan, Chadd Nesbit, Jinnah A. Phillips, David M. Lionetti, Paul J. Chang, Jeffrey D. Towers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives: To determine whether emergency department (ED) preliminary reports rendered by subspecialist attending radiologists who are reading outside their field of expertise are more accurate than reports rendered by radiology residents, and to compare error rates between radiologists and nonradiologists in the ED setting. Materials and Methods: The study was performed at a large academic medical center with a busy ED. An electronic preliminary report generator was used in the ED to capture preliminary interpretations rendered in a clinical setting by radiology residents, junior attendings (within 2 years of taking their oral boards), senior attendings, and ED clinicians between August 1999 and November 2004. Each preliminary report was later reviewed by a final interpreting radiologist, and the preliminary interpretation was adjudicated for the presence of substantial discordances, defined as a difference in interpretation that might immediately impact the care of the patient. Of the 612,890 preliminary reports in the database, 65,780 (11%) met inclusion criteria for this study. A log-linear analysis was used to assess the effects of modality and type of author on preliminary report error rates. Results: ED clinicians had significantly higher error rates when compared with any type of radiologist, regardless of modality. Within the radiologists, residents and junior attendings had lower error rates than did senior attendings, but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Subspecialized attending radiologists who interpret ED examinations outside their area of expertise have error rates similar to those of radiology residents. Nonradiologists have significantly higher error rates than radiologists and radiology residents when interpreting examinations in the ED.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)201-206
Number of pages6
JournalAcademic Radiology
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2007

Fingerprint

Radiology
Hospital Emergency Service
Radiologists
Reading
Patient Care
Databases

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Branstetter IV, B. F., Morgan, M. B., Nesbit, C., Phillips, J. A., Lionetti, D. M., Chang, P. J., & Towers, J. D. (2007). Preliminary Reports in the Emergency Department: Is a Subspecialist Radiologist More Accurate Than a Radiology Resident? Academic Radiology, 14(2), 201-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2006.11.001
Branstetter IV, Barton F. ; Morgan, Matthew B. ; Nesbit, Chadd ; Phillips, Jinnah A. ; Lionetti, David M. ; Chang, Paul J. ; Towers, Jeffrey D. / Preliminary Reports in the Emergency Department : Is a Subspecialist Radiologist More Accurate Than a Radiology Resident?. In: Academic Radiology. 2007 ; Vol. 14, No. 2. pp. 201-206.
@article{8429dca0fd39481b8a499f06a04d79af,
title = "Preliminary Reports in the Emergency Department: Is a Subspecialist Radiologist More Accurate Than a Radiology Resident?",
abstract = "Rationale and Objectives: To determine whether emergency department (ED) preliminary reports rendered by subspecialist attending radiologists who are reading outside their field of expertise are more accurate than reports rendered by radiology residents, and to compare error rates between radiologists and nonradiologists in the ED setting. Materials and Methods: The study was performed at a large academic medical center with a busy ED. An electronic preliminary report generator was used in the ED to capture preliminary interpretations rendered in a clinical setting by radiology residents, junior attendings (within 2 years of taking their oral boards), senior attendings, and ED clinicians between August 1999 and November 2004. Each preliminary report was later reviewed by a final interpreting radiologist, and the preliminary interpretation was adjudicated for the presence of substantial discordances, defined as a difference in interpretation that might immediately impact the care of the patient. Of the 612,890 preliminary reports in the database, 65,780 (11{\%}) met inclusion criteria for this study. A log-linear analysis was used to assess the effects of modality and type of author on preliminary report error rates. Results: ED clinicians had significantly higher error rates when compared with any type of radiologist, regardless of modality. Within the radiologists, residents and junior attendings had lower error rates than did senior attendings, but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Subspecialized attending radiologists who interpret ED examinations outside their area of expertise have error rates similar to those of radiology residents. Nonradiologists have significantly higher error rates than radiologists and radiology residents when interpreting examinations in the ED.",
author = "{Branstetter IV}, {Barton F.} and Morgan, {Matthew B.} and Chadd Nesbit and Phillips, {Jinnah A.} and Lionetti, {David M.} and Chang, {Paul J.} and Towers, {Jeffrey D.}",
year = "2007",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.acra.2006.11.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "201--206",
journal = "Academic Radiology",
issn = "1076-6332",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "2",

}

Preliminary Reports in the Emergency Department : Is a Subspecialist Radiologist More Accurate Than a Radiology Resident? / Branstetter IV, Barton F.; Morgan, Matthew B.; Nesbit, Chadd; Phillips, Jinnah A.; Lionetti, David M.; Chang, Paul J.; Towers, Jeffrey D.

In: Academic Radiology, Vol. 14, No. 2, 01.02.2007, p. 201-206.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Preliminary Reports in the Emergency Department

T2 - Is a Subspecialist Radiologist More Accurate Than a Radiology Resident?

AU - Branstetter IV, Barton F.

AU - Morgan, Matthew B.

AU - Nesbit, Chadd

AU - Phillips, Jinnah A.

AU - Lionetti, David M.

AU - Chang, Paul J.

AU - Towers, Jeffrey D.

PY - 2007/2/1

Y1 - 2007/2/1

N2 - Rationale and Objectives: To determine whether emergency department (ED) preliminary reports rendered by subspecialist attending radiologists who are reading outside their field of expertise are more accurate than reports rendered by radiology residents, and to compare error rates between radiologists and nonradiologists in the ED setting. Materials and Methods: The study was performed at a large academic medical center with a busy ED. An electronic preliminary report generator was used in the ED to capture preliminary interpretations rendered in a clinical setting by radiology residents, junior attendings (within 2 years of taking their oral boards), senior attendings, and ED clinicians between August 1999 and November 2004. Each preliminary report was later reviewed by a final interpreting radiologist, and the preliminary interpretation was adjudicated for the presence of substantial discordances, defined as a difference in interpretation that might immediately impact the care of the patient. Of the 612,890 preliminary reports in the database, 65,780 (11%) met inclusion criteria for this study. A log-linear analysis was used to assess the effects of modality and type of author on preliminary report error rates. Results: ED clinicians had significantly higher error rates when compared with any type of radiologist, regardless of modality. Within the radiologists, residents and junior attendings had lower error rates than did senior attendings, but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Subspecialized attending radiologists who interpret ED examinations outside their area of expertise have error rates similar to those of radiology residents. Nonradiologists have significantly higher error rates than radiologists and radiology residents when interpreting examinations in the ED.

AB - Rationale and Objectives: To determine whether emergency department (ED) preliminary reports rendered by subspecialist attending radiologists who are reading outside their field of expertise are more accurate than reports rendered by radiology residents, and to compare error rates between radiologists and nonradiologists in the ED setting. Materials and Methods: The study was performed at a large academic medical center with a busy ED. An electronic preliminary report generator was used in the ED to capture preliminary interpretations rendered in a clinical setting by radiology residents, junior attendings (within 2 years of taking their oral boards), senior attendings, and ED clinicians between August 1999 and November 2004. Each preliminary report was later reviewed by a final interpreting radiologist, and the preliminary interpretation was adjudicated for the presence of substantial discordances, defined as a difference in interpretation that might immediately impact the care of the patient. Of the 612,890 preliminary reports in the database, 65,780 (11%) met inclusion criteria for this study. A log-linear analysis was used to assess the effects of modality and type of author on preliminary report error rates. Results: ED clinicians had significantly higher error rates when compared with any type of radiologist, regardless of modality. Within the radiologists, residents and junior attendings had lower error rates than did senior attendings, but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Subspecialized attending radiologists who interpret ED examinations outside their area of expertise have error rates similar to those of radiology residents. Nonradiologists have significantly higher error rates than radiologists and radiology residents when interpreting examinations in the ED.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33846212789&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33846212789&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.acra.2006.11.001

DO - 10.1016/j.acra.2006.11.001

M3 - Article

C2 - 17236993

AN - SCOPUS:33846212789

VL - 14

SP - 201

EP - 206

JO - Academic Radiology

JF - Academic Radiology

SN - 1076-6332

IS - 2

ER -