Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rhea, J. T.
Right arrow Articles by DeLuca, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rhea, J. T.
Right arrow Articles by DeLuca, S. A.

Radiology, Vol 132, 277-280, Copyright © 1979 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Errors of interpretation as elicited by a quality audit of an emergency radiology facility

JT Rhea, MS Potsaid and SA DeLuca

A process-oriented quality care audit was performed in a large metropolitan hospital emergency radiology facility with an annual volume of over 50,000 examinations. One aspect of the audit dealt with errors found among interpretations by radiology residents, the initial interpreters of x-ray studies. Misinterpretations were identified by staff radiologists, who checked all examinations and countersigned the reports. Error rates were correlated with duration of training and were separated as to significance and whether the errors were false-negative (omission) or false-positive (commission). The false-positive to false- negative ratio was 27:73% which is in agreement with previous studies. For all cases of errors, the significance of change in interpretation was high in 20%, moderate in 29% and low in 51%. The effect of inadequate clinical history on the rate and significance of interpretation errors was also determined. When clinical information was inadequate, the significance was high in 27%, moderate in 40% and low in 33%.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Board Fam MedHome page
P. D. Smith, J. Temte, J. W. Beasley, and M. Mundt
Radiographs in the Office: Is a Second Reading Always Needed?
J Am Board Fam Med, July 1, 2004; 17(4): 256 - 263.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. E. Mullins, M. H. Lev, D. Schellingerhout, W. J. Koroshetz, and R. G. Gonzalez
Influence of Availability of Clinical History on Detection of Early Stroke Using Unenhanced CT and Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2002; 179(1): 223 - 228.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
J. A Espinosa and T. W Nolan
Reducing errors made by emergency physicians in interpreting radiographs: longitudinal study
BMJ, March 18, 2000; 320(7237): 737 - 740.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Am. J. Neuroradiol.Home page
N. R. Lal, U. M. Murray, O. P. Eldevik, and J. S. Desmond
Clinical Consequences of Misinterpretations of Neuroradiologic CT Scans by On-CallRadiology Residents
AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., January 1, 2000; 21(1): 124 - 129.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
M. J. Matava, K. Eck, W. Totty, R. W. Wright, and R. A. Shively
Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Tool to Predict Meniscal Reparability
Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 1999; 27(4): 436 - 443.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1979 by the Radiological Society of North America.