What Can Be Done if a Dr Reads His Own Xray Wrong

Insights Imaging. 2017 Feb; 8(1): 171–182.

Mistake and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable?

Adrian P. Brady

Radiology Department, Mercy University Infirmary, Cork, Ireland

Received 2016 Sep 19; Revised 2016 November 7; Accustomed 2016 Nov 15.

Abstract

Abstruse

Errors and discrepancies in radiology practice are uncomfortably common, with an estimated day-to-twenty-four hour period rate of 3–5% of studies reported, and much higher rates reported in many targeted studies. Nonetheless, the meaning of the terms "error" and "discrepancy" and the relationship to medical negligence are frequently misunderstood. This review outlines the incidence of such events, the ways they can be categorized to aid understanding, and potential contributing factors, both human being- and organisation-based. Possible strategies to minimise mistake are considered, along with the means of dealing with perceived underperformance when it is identified. The inevitability of imperfection is explained, while the importance of striving to minimise such imperfection is emphasised.

Teaching Points

• Discrepancies betwixt radiology reports and subsequent patient outcomes are non inevitably errors.

• Radiologist reporting operation cannot be perfect, and some errors are inevitable.

• Error or discrepancy in radiology reporting does non equate negligence.

• Radiologist errors occur for many reasons, both human- and system-derived.

• Strategies exist to minimise error causes and to learn from errors made.

Keywords: Radiology, Mistake, diagnostic, Error sources, Misdiagnosis, Quality improvement

Definition of error/discrepancy

It was recently estimated that one billion radiologic examinations are performed worldwide annually, most of which are interpreted by radiologists [i]. Most professional person bodies would agree that all imaging procedures should include an proficient radiologist's opinion, given past means of a written report [ii]. This activity constitutes much of the daily piece of work of practising radiologists. We don't e'er get it right.

Although not always appreciated by the public, or indeed by referring doctors, radiologists' reports should not be expected to be definitive or incontrovertible. They stand for clinical consultations, resulting in opinions which are conclusions arrived at afterward weighing of evidence [3]; "stance" tin can exist defined every bit "a view held about a particular subject or point; a judgement formed; a belief" [four]. Sometimes it is possible to be definitive in radiological diagnoses, but in almost cases, radiological interpretation is heavily influenced by the clinical circumstances of the patient, relevant past history and previous imaging, and myriad other factors, including biases of which we may not be aware. Radiological studies do not come with inbuilt labels denoting the virtually pregnant abnormalities, and interpreting them is not a binary process (normal vs abnormal, cancer vs "all-clear").

In this context, defining what constitutes radiological error is not straightforward. The use of the term "mistake" implies that there is no potential for disagreement about what is "correct", and indicates that the reporting radiologist should take been able to make the right diagnosis or report, merely did non [3]. In existent life, there is ofttimes room for legitimate differences of opinion virtually diagnoses or for "failure" to identify an abnormality that can be seen in retrospect. Adept stance frequently forms the basis for deciding whether an fault has been made [3], only information technology should be noted that "experts" themselves may too be subject to question ("An proficient is someone who is more than fifty miles from habitation, has no responsibility for implementing the advice he gives, and shows slides." - Ed Meese, US Attorney General 1985–88).

Whatsoever discrepancy in interpretation that deviates substantially from a consensus of one'south peers is a reasonable and unremarkably accepted definition of interpretive radiological error [i], but even this is a loose description of a complex procedure, and may be subject to debate in individual circumstances. Certainly, in some circumstances, diagnoses are proven by pathologic exam of surgical or dissection material, and this proof can be used to evaluate prior radiological diagnoses [1], but this is not a common basis for determining whether fault has occurred. Many cases of supposed fault, in fact, fall within the realm of reasonable differences of opinions between conscientious practitioners. "Discrepancy" is a amend term to describe what happens in many such cases.

This is non to propose that radiological error does not occur; it does, and frequently. Only how oft volition be addressed in another department of this newspaper.

Negligence

Leonard Berlin, writing in 1995, establish that the rate of radiology-related malpractice lawsuits in Cook Canton, Illinois, USA, was rising inexorably, with the bulk of suits for missed diagnosis, and nosotros accept no reason to believe that this pattern has since changed. Interestingly, his data showed a progressive reduction in the length of time between the introduction of a new imaging technology and the starting time filed lawsuit arising from its use, from over 10 years for ultrasound (first adapt 1982), to 8 years for CT (offset suit 1982), and four years for MRI (first suit 1987) [5].

The stardom betwixt "acceptably" or "understandably" failing to perceive or report an abnormality on a radiological study and negligently declining to report a lesion is an important one, albeit one that is difficult to explain to laypersons or juries. As Berlin wrote:

"[F]rom a applied indicate of view once an aberration on a radiograph is pointed out and becomes so obvious that lay persons sitting as jurors can come across it, it is non easy to convince them that a radiologist who is trained and paid for seeing the lesion should be exonerated for missing it. This is peculiarly truthful when the missing of that lesion has delayed the timely diagnosis and the possible cure of a malignancy that is eventually fatal" [6].

A major influence on the determination of whether an initially missed abnormality should have been identified arises in the course of hindsight bias, divers as the "tendency for people with knowledge of the actual outcome of an event to believe falsely that they would have predicted the outcome" [6]. This "creeping determinism" involves automatic and immediate integration of information near the outcome into one'due south knowledge of events preceding the outcome [6]. Expert witnesses are oft influenced by their cognition of the event in determining whether a radiologist, acting reasonably, ought to have detected an abnormality when reporting a study prior to the result being known, and thus in suggesting whether failure to find the abnormality constituted negligence.

Berlin quotes a Wisconsin (USA) appeals court conclusion which helpfully teases out some of these points:

"In determining whether a dr. was negligent, the question is not whether a reasonable doctor, or an average physician, should have detected the abnormalities, but whether the physician used the degree of skill and intendance that a reasonable physician, or an average medico, would use in the aforementioned or similar circumstances…A radiologist may review an x-ray using the caste of intendance of a reasonable radiologist, but neglect to detect an abnormality that, on average, would take been found… Radiologists simply cannot detect all abnormalities on all x-rays… The phenomena of "errors in perception" occur when a radiologist diligently reviews an x-ray, follow[due south] all the proper procedures, and use[s] all the proper techniques, and fails to perceive an abnormality, which, in retrospect is credible… Errors in perception past radiologists viewing ten-rays occur in the absence of negligence" [vi].

Radiologists base of operations their conclusions on a varying number of premises (e.yard. available clinical information, statistical likelihood). Any of the bases for conclusions may prove to take been false. Subsequent data may show the original conclusion to have been false, merely this does not constitute a prima facie error in judgement, and the possibility that a dissimilar radiologist might have come up to a dissimilar conclusion based upon the same information does not imply negligence on its own [7].

It is of import to avert the temptation (beloved by plaintiffs' lawyers) to use the principle "radiologists have a duty to translate radiographs correctly" to specific instances ("radiologists have a duty to interpret this detail radiograph correctly"). The inference that missing an abnormality on a specific radiograph automatically constitutes malpractice is not correct [7]. Experienced, competent radiologists may miss abnormalities, and may exist unaware of having done and then. Experienced radiologists may make different judgements based on the same report; thus differences in judgement are not negligence [7]. Unfortunately, juries are often swayed by pity for an injured defendant, and research has shown that the results of malpractice suits are oft related to the degree of inability or injury rather than to the nature of the event or whether physician negligence was present [7].

Distribution of radiologist operation

The American humorist Garrison Keillor reports the news from his fictional dwelling, Lake Wobegon, on his weekly radio show, A Prairie Home Companion, terminal each monologue with "That'south the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are skilful looking, and all the children are to a higher place average" [8]. Sadly, the statistical applesauce underpinning the joke is not ever appreciated by media or political commentators, who often fail to appreciate the necessity of "beneath-average" performance. If one assumes that the accurateness of radiological operation approximates a normal (Gaussian) distribution (Fig.1a), so about half of that performance must lie below the median—must be "below average". That does not mean that these radiologists are substandard by definition. Inevitably, some radiological performance will fall so far to the left farthermost of the distribution that it will be judged to be below acceptable standards, but the threshold defining what is acceptable performance is somewhat arbitrary, and relies upon the loose definition based on peer standards outlined in the "Definition" section of this paper.

a Gaussian (normal) distribution. b Paretian (power) distribution

A Gaussian distribution of operation is non necessarily universally accepted. In 2012, O'Boyle and Aguinis published a review of studies measuring operation among more than 600,000 researchers, entertainers, politicians, and amateur and professional athletes [9]. The authors found that private performance was non usually distributed, but instead followed a Paretian (power law) distribution (Fig.1b), such that most performance was amassed to the left side of the reverse exponential curve, and about accomplishments were achieved by a pocket-size number of super-performers. On this model, most performers are below "average", and thus less productive and more likely to brand mistakes than the super-performers, or even than the median, which is skewed towards the higher end of operation.

The subtleties and implications of these statistical concepts are often not understood—or are wilfully ignored—by media commentators or the full general public, and thus the concept of "average" is often misinterpreted every bit the lowest acceptable standard of behaviour. As my 14-year-old son recently remarked to me, about people have an above-average number of legs.

Regardless of the shape of the curve of radiological performance, however, the aim of any quality improvement programme should be to shift the curve continually to the correct [ten] and, if possible, to narrow the width of the bend such that the underlying culture in the workforce is ane of striving to minimise variability in performance quality and to continually improve functioning in whatever fashion possible.

How prevalent is radiologic fault?

Table ​ 1 lists a sample of published studies, ranging from 1949 to the present, which have assessed the frequency of radiological errors or discrepancies. Leonard Berlin has published extensively on this issue, and cites a real-time mean solar day-to-day radiologist fault rate averaging iii–5%, and a retrospective fault rate amongst radiologic studies averaging xxx% [22]. Applying a iv% error rate to the worldwide one billion annual radiologic studies equates to about 40 million radiologist errors per annum [i].

Table one

Sample of published studies of radiological mistake

Year	Author	Ref	Fabric	Key points	Comments
2001	Goddard et al.	[11]	Various	Clinically significant mistake rate of 2–20%, depending on radiological investigation
1981	Forrest et al.	[12]	Retrospective review of previous chest x-rays (CXRs) in patients later on diagnosed with lung cancer	Imitation-negative rate of 40%	Lesions visible only non reported on prior studies
1983	Muhm at al	[xiii]	Lung cancers detected past plainly radiography screening	ninety% of cancers detected visible in retrospect on prior radiographs going dorsum months or, in some cases, years (53 months in one case)
1993	Harvey et al.	[14]	Review of prior mammograms in patients in whom impalpable breast cancer subsequently diagnosed by mammography	Testify of carcinoma identifiable on prior studies in 41% when blindly reinterpreted, and in 75% when reviewers were aware of subsequent findings
1999	Quekel et al.	[xv]	Non-small cell lung cancer diagnosed on plain CXR	19% missed diagnosis rate	16-mm median diameter of missed lesions, median delay in diagnosis of 472 days
1949	In Robinson (1997)	[3]	CXR in patients with suspected TB	Interpreted differently past different observers in 10–20%
1990, 1994	Markus et al., Brady et al.	[16, 17]	Barium enema	Boilerplate observer missed 30% of visible lesions	Supposed gold standard of colonoscopy also subject field to error
1999	Robinson	[18]	Emergency dept. plain radiographs	Major disagreement between two observers in v–nine% of cases	Estimated fault incidence per observer of 3–6%
1997	Tudor et al.	[19]	Plain radiographs	Hateful accuracy: 77% without clinical data, 80% with clinical information. Modest improvements in sensitivity, specificity and inter-observer agreement with clinical information	Five experienced radiologists reported mix of validated normal and aberrant studies 5 months apart. No clinical data on first occasion, relevant clinical information provided on 2nd occasion
2008	Siewert et al.	[twenty]	Oncologic CT	Discordant interpretations in 31–37%, with resultant alter in radiological staging in nineteen%, and change in patient treatment in upwardly to 23%
2007	Briggs et al.	[21]	Neuro CT & MR	thirteen% major & 21% minor discrepancy rates (undercalls, overcalls & misinterpretations)	Specialist neuroradiologist second reading of studies initially interpreted by general radiologists

Many of the papers quoted (and the myriad other, similar studies) describe retrospective assessment, with varying degrees of blinding at the time of re-cess of studies. Prospective studies have as well been published. A major disagreement rate of 5–9% was identified between 2 observers in interpreting emergency department plain radiographs, with an error incidence per observer of 3–6% [18]. A cancer misdiagnosis (simulated-positive) rate of up to 61% has been quoted for screening mammography [23]. In the context of 38,293,403 screening mammograms performed in the US in 2013, this rate has significant implications for patient morbidity and feet. Discordant interpretations of oncologic CT studies have been reported in 31–37% of cases [xx].

Mistake or discrepancy rates tin can be influenced past the standard confronting which the initial study is measured. A 2007 report of the impact of specialist neuroradiologist second reading of CT and MR studies initially interpreted past general radiologists found a thirteen% major and 21% minor discrepancy rate [21].

Nigh of these studies are based on identification of inter-observer variation. Intra-observer variation, however, should not be ignored. A 2010 written report from Massachusetts General Hospital tasked three experienced abdominal imaging radiologists with blindly re-interpreting 60 intestinal and pelvic CTs, xxx of which had previously been reported past someone else and thirty by themselves. Major inter-observer and intra-observer discrepancy rates of 26% and 32%, respectively, were found [24].

Similar reports in the literature of the last 60 years are legion; the above examples serve to show the consistency of discrepancy rates beyond modalities, subspecialties and time. Given these plainly constant, high discrepancy rates, it seems far-fetched to imagine that these "errors" are entirely the production of "bad radiologists".

Other medical specialties

Inherent in the work produced by radiologists (and histopathologists) is the fact that about every clinical act we perform is available for re-interpretation or review at a later appointment. Digital archival systems take virtually eliminated the loss of radiological cloth, even after many years. This has been a boon to patient care, and underpins much multidisciplinary team action. It has also been a boon to those interested in researching radiological error and those interested in using archival data for other purposes, including litigation.

This chapters to revisit prior clinical decisions and acts is less available for nearly other medical specialties, and thus the literature detailing the prevalence of error in other specialties is less extensive. Nevertheless, some such data exist. A report from the Mayo Dispensary published in 2000 reviewed the pre mortem clinical diagnoses and post mortem diagnoses in 100 patients who died in the medical intensive care unit of measurement [25]. In 16%, autopsies revealed major diagnoses that, if known before death, might have led to a change in therapy and prolonged survival; in another 10%, major diagnoses were found at autopsy that, if known before, would probably not have led to a change in therapy. Berlin quotes Harvard data showing adverse events occurring in 3.seven% of hospitalisations in New York, and information from other states showing a ii.9% agin event occurrence [22]. In 1995, he as well quoted a number of studies from the 1950s to the 1990s showing poor agreement amid experienced physicians in assessing basic clinical signs at concrete test and in making certain disquisitional diagnoses, such equally myocardial infarction [5].

In November 1999, the Us Institute of Medicine published a report, To Err is Human: Edifice a Safer Health System, which analysed numerous studies across a variety of organisations, and adamant that betwixt 44,000 and 98,000 deaths every year in the USA were the result of preventible medical mistake [26]. Ane of the major conclusions was that nigh medical errors were non the result of individual recklessness or the deportment of a particular grouping, simply were most commonly due to faulty systems and processes.

Categorization of radiologic error

A commonly used and useful delineation divides radiologic error into cognitive and perceptual errors. Cognitive errors, which account for 20–40% of the total, occur when an aberration is identified merely the reporting radiologist fails to correctly sympathise or written report its significance, i.e. misinterpretation. The more common perceptual error (60–fourscore%) occurs when the radiologist fails to place the abnormality in the starting time place, but it is recognised as having been visible in retrospect [1]. The reported rate of perceptual fault is relatively consistent across many modalities, circumstances and locations, and seems to be a constant product of the complication of radiologists' work [one].

In 1992, Renfrew and co-authors classified 182 cases presented at problem case conferences in a U.s. university instruction hospital [27]. The commonest categories were nether-reading (the abnormality was missed) and faulty reasoning (including over-reading, misinterpretation, reporting misleading data or limited differential diagnoses). Lesser numbers were caused by complacency, lack of knowledge (the finding was identified but attributed to the wrong crusade in both cases) and poor communication (aberration identified, but intent of report non conveyed to the clinician).

In 2014, Kim and Mansfield published a classification system for radiological errors, adding some useful categories to the Renfrew classification [28, 29]. Their data were derived from 1269 errors (all made past faculty radiologists) reviewed at problem case conferences in a US Army medical heart over an eight-twelvemonth period. Virtually errors occurred in patently radiography cases (54%), followed by large-data volume cross-sectional studies: CT xxx.v% and MRI 11.4%. The types of errors identified are shown in Table ​ 2. Examples of errors caused by under-reading, satisfaction of search and an abnormality lying outside (or on the margin) of the area of involvement are shown in Figs.2, ​ 3 and ​ 4, respectively.

Table 2

Kim & Mansfield radiologic error categorization, 2014 [28]

Error type	Explanation	%
Nether-reading	Abnormality visible, just non reported (Fig.two)	42%
Satisfaction of search	Later having identified a beginning abnormality, radiologist fails to continue to look for additional abnormalities (Fig.three)	22%
Faulty reasoning	Abnormalities identified, but attributed to wrong crusade	9%
Abnormalities outside surface area of interest (just visible)	Many on kickoff or last image of CT or MR series, suggesting radiologist's attention not fully engaged at get-go or end of reviewing serial (Fig.4)	vii%
Satisfaction of report (alliterative reasoning [29])	Uncritical reliance on previous report in reaching diagnosis, leading to perpetuation of fault through consecutive studies	6%
Failure to consult prior imaging studies		five%
Inaccurate or incomplete clinical history		2%
Correct study failing to accomplish referring clinician		0.08%

Left upper lobe lung carcinoma (pointer), non reported on CXR (nether-reading fault)

Hypervascular pancreatic metastasis from renal jail cell carcinoma (arrow), not reported on CT; lung and mediastinal nodal metastases identified and reported (satisfaction of search error)

Metastasis from prostate carcinoma (arrow), missed on acme slice of T1W axial MR sequence (fault due to abnormality outside surface area of interest)

Advice failings

Poorly written or breathless reports were not identified in either of these studies, but correspond another meaning source of potential impairment to patients. Written reports, forming a permanent office of the patient record, stand for the principal means of communication between the reporting radiologist and the referrer. In some instances, direct exact discussion of findings will take place, but in the vast majority of cases, the radiology written report offers the simply opportunity for a radiologist to convey his/her interpretation, conclusions and advice to the referrer. However, there can be a considerable difference between the radiologist's understanding of the message in a radiology report, and the estimation of that report by the referring clinician [30].

It matters little to a patient if an abnormality is identified by the reporting radiologist and correctly described in the report, if that report is not sufficiently clear for the referring clinician to appreciate what he or she is being told by the radiologist [1]. Amid the failings which tin lead to misunderstanding of the intent of reports are poor structure or organisation, poor choice of vocabulary, errors in grammar or punctuation, and failure to identify or right errors introduced into the report by suboptimal voice recognition software. The use of vocalism recognition software has been found to lead to significantly increased error rates relative to dictation and manual transcription [31], and if the reporting radiologist fails to pay sufficient attention to identifying and correcting such errors, the resulting inaccurate or confusing reports can be a source of pregnant misunderstanding of the intention of the report by the referrer (a recent example from my own department is the "verified" report of a plain film of the hallux, which includes the phrase "balmy metatarsus penis diverse"—I am assuming this was an uncorrected phonation recognition transcription mistake, as opposed to a description of a foot fetish).

Factors contributing to radiological error

Technical factors, such as the specific imaging protocol used, the use of appropriate contrast or patient bodily habitus may influence the radiologist'south power to place abnormalities or to correctly interpret them [20]. Many possible contributing factors may lead to a radiological error, in the absence of a specific technical caption, just when identifiable, they can be usefully divided into those that are person (radiologist)-specific, and those that are functions of the environment within which the radiologist works (system issues) [32]. The reporting radiologist may not know enough to identify or recognise the relevant finding (or to correctly dismiss insignificant abnormalities). He may be complacent or employ faulty reasoning. She may consistently over- or under-read abnormalities. He may not communicate his findings or their significance appropriately [27].

Possible system issues leading to mistake may involve staff shortages and/or excess workload, staff inexperience, inadequate equipment, a less than optimal reporting environs (e.g. poor lighting weather) or inattention due to constant repetition of similar tasks. Unavailability of previous studies for comparing was a more common correspondent in the pre-PACS [picture archiving and advice system] era, but should non be a significant factor in the electric current digital historic period. Inadequate clinical information or inappropriate expectations of the capabilities of a radiological technique can lead to misunderstanding or miscommunication between the referring doctor and the radiologist [33]. (The impact of lack of clinical data may be over-estimated, however. In 1997, Tudor evaluated the bear on of the availability of clinical information on error rates when reporting plain radiographs. 5 experienced radiologists reported a mix of validated normal and abnormal studies v months autonomously, with no clinical information on the outset occasion and with relevant clinical information on the second occasion. Mean accuracy improved from 77% without clinical information to lxxx% on provision of the clinical data, with small improvements in sensitivity, specificity and inter-observer understanding as well [xix].)

Frequent interruptions during the functioning of complex tasks such every bit reporting of cross-sectional studies can lead to loss of concentration and failure to report abnormalities identified but forgotten when the radiologist's attention was diverted elsewhere. Frequent clinico-radiological contacts take been shown to have a significant positive influence on clinical diagnosis and further patient management; these are best undertaken through formal clinico-radiological conferences [34], just are ofttimes breezy, and tin can have a distracting outcome when they interfere with other, ongoing work.

Common to all of these system issues is the theme of fatigue, both visual and mental.

Modern healthcare systems oft demand what has been called hyper-efficient radiology, where virtually instantaneous interpretation of large datasets past radiologists is expected, often in patients with multiple co-morbidities, and sometimes for clinicians whose in-depth knowledge of the patients is limited or suboptimal [35]. The pace and design of in-hospital care frequently results in imaging tests being requested before patients have been carefully examined or before detailed histories accept been taken. It is inappreciably surprising that relevant data is not always communicated fully or in a timely manner. There is constant pressure level on radiology departments to increase speed and output, often without adequate prior planning of workforce requirements. Error rates in reporting body CT have been shown to increment substantially when the number of cases exceeds a daily threshold of 20 [xxx]. Many of us feel we are reporting too many studies, also rapidly, without adequate time to fully consider our reports. This results in the obvious chance of reduced accurateness in what we report, simply as well in more unexpected dangers. Berlin reported on a case where a plaintiff claimed that a radiologist's behaviour in existence overworked constituted "reckless behaviour", leading to the radiologist failing to diagnose breast cancer on a screening mammogram, equally a upshot of a "wanton disregard of patient well-being by sacrificing quality patient intendance for volume in order to maximise revenue" [36].

Workload vs workforce

Data from 2008 [37] show variation in the number of clinical radiologists per 100,000 population in selected European countries, ranging from 3.8 (Republic of ireland) to 18.ix (Denmark). Confronting this background, the total number of imaging tests performed in virtually all developed countries continues to rise, with the greatest increase in data- and labour-intensive cross-sectional imaging studies (ultrasound, CT and MR). Even within these large-scale figures, there are other, hidden elements of increased workload: between 2007 and 2010, British information demonstrated increases of between 49% and 75% in the number of images presented to the radiologist for review as part of dissimilar body part CT examinations [37].

In 2011, a national survey of radiologist workload showed that in 2009, Ireland had approximately two-thirds of the consultant radiologists needed to cope with the workload at the time, applying international norms [38–40]. With increasing workload since that time, and only a small increase in radiologist numbers, that radiologist shortfall has just worsened.

Visual fatigue

Krupinski and co-authors measured radiologists' visual accommodation capability subsequently reporting 60 os examinations at the showtime and at the end of a day of clinical reporting. At the stop of a day's reporting, they establish reduced ability to focus, increased symptoms of fatigue and oculomotor strain, and reduced power to detect fractures. The decrease in detection charge per unit was greater among residents than attending radiologists. The authors quote conflicting research from the 1970s and 1980s, some of which institute a lower charge per unit of detection of lung nodules on chest x-rays at the cease of the day, and some which institute no change in performance between early and late reporting [41].

Decision (Mental) fatigue

The length of continuous duty shifts and work hours for many healthcare professionals is much greater than that allowed in other safety-conscious industries, such as transportation or nuclear power [42]. Slumber deprivation has been shown experimentally to produce furnishings on certain mental tasks equivalent to booze intoxication [42]. Continuous prolonged decision-making results in decision fatigue, and the nature of radiologists' piece of work makes u.s. prone to this effect. Non surprisingly, this form of fatigue increases afterwards in the day, and leads to unconscious taking of shortcuts in cerebral processes, resulting in poor judgement and diagnostic errors. Radiology trainees providing preliminary interpretations during off-hours are especially prone to this effect [43].

Inattentional blindness

Inattentional blindness describes the miracle wherein observers miss an unexpected but salient upshot when engaged in a different task. Researchers from the Harvard Visual Attention Lab provided 24 experienced radiologists with a lung nodule detection job. Each radiologist was given five CTs to translate, each comprising 100–500 images, and each containing an average of ten lung nodules. In the concluding example, the image of a gorilla (night, in contrast to bright lung nodules on lung window settings) 48 times larger than the average nodule, was faded in and out shut to a nodule over five frames. Xx of the 24 radiologists did not study seeing the gorilla, despite spending an average of five.8 s viewing the slices containing the image, and despite visual tracking confirming that 12 of them had looked direct at it [44].

Dual Procedure theory of reasoning

The current dominant theoretical model of cognitive processing in real-life decision-making is the dual-process theory of reasoning [43, 45], which postulates type 1 (automatic) and type 2 (more linear and deliberate) processes. In radiology, pattern recognition leading to firsthand diagnosis constitutes type i processing, while the deliberate reasoning that occurs when the abnormality pattern is not instantly recognised constitutes type ii reasoning [43]. Dynamic oscillation occurs betwixt these two forms of processing during decision-making.

Both of these types of mental processing are discipline to biases and errors, but blazon i processing is especially and then, due to the mental shortcuts inherent in the process [43]. A cognitive bias is a replicable pattern in perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgement and illogical interpretation, persistently leading to the same pattern of poor judgement. Type ane processing is a useful and frequent technique used in radiological interpretation by experienced radiologists, and rather than eliminating it and its inherent biases, the all-time strategy for minimising these biases may be learning deliberate type 2 forcing strategies to override type i thinking where appropriate [43].

Biases

Many cognitive biases have been described in the psychology and other literature; some of these are particularly likely to characteristic in faulty radiological thinking, and are listed in Table ​ 3. One might imagine that being aware of potential biases would empower a radiologist to avoid these pitfalls; yet, experimental efforts to reduce diagnostic fault in specialties other than radiology by applying de-biasing algorithms have been unsuccessful [1].

Table iii

Examples of cerebral biases likely to feature in faulty radiological thinking [1, 42]

Bias	Explanation
Anchoring bias	During the procedure of reporting a study, the radiologist fixes upon an early impression, and fails to adapt or change that view, discounting whatsoever subsequent information that may disharmonize
Framing bias	The radiologist is unduly influenced by the way the question or problem is framed, east.g. if the clinical information provided in a request for a CT states "immature patient with palpable mass, probable Crohn's disease", a bowel mass may exist interpreted as being probable due to Crohn's, discounting possible malignancy
Availability bias	Tendency to suggest diagnoses that readily come to mind.
Confirmation bias	Tendency to seek evidence to support a diagnostic hypothesis already made, and to ignore prove refuting that hypothesis
Satisfaction of search	Tendency to cease looking for additional abnormal findings on a study once an initial probable diagnosis is identified
Premature closure	Trend to have a diagnosis before proof or verification is obtained
Outcome bias	Naturally empathic inclination to favour a diagnosis that will result in a more favourable outcome for the patient, even if unsupported by evidence
Zebra retreat	Inclination of a radiologist to hold back from making a rare diagnosis due to lack of conviction most reporting such an unusual condition, despite supporting evidence

Strategies for minimising radiologic error

Many radiologists have traditionally believed that their role in patient care consists in reporting imaging studies. This limited view is no longer tenable, as radiologists have expanded into areas of economic gatekeeping, multidisciplinary team participation, advancement, and acting every bit controllers of patient and staff prophylactic. Some other role of increasing importance is that of identifying and learning from error and discrepancies, and leading efforts to change systems when systemic problems underpin such errors [46].

The large amount of data available to us leads to the inevitable decision that radiological (and other medical) error is inevitable: "Errors in judgement must occur in the exercise of an fine art which consists largely in balancing probabilities" [47]. Although information technology requires a nuanced understanding of the complication of medical intendance ofttimes not appreciated by patients, politicians or the mass media, acceptance of the concept of necessary fallibility needs to be encouraged; public didactics tin can help. Fortunately, many errors identified past retrospective reviews are of lilliputian or no significance to patients; conversely, some pregnant errors are never discovered [3]. The public has a right to expect that all healthcare professionals strive to exceed the advisable threshold which defines the border betwixt clinically adequate, competent practise, and negligence or incompetence. Difficulties arise, however, in attempting to identify exactly where that threshold lies.

Quality management (or quality improvement - QI) in radiology involves the use of systematically nerveless and analysed data to ensure optimal quality of the service delivered to patients [48]. Increasingly, dr. reimbursement for services and maintenance of licensing for do are existence tied to participation in such quality management or improvement activities [48].

Diverse strategies have been proposed as tools to help reduce the propensity for radiological fault; some of these are focused and applied, while others are rather more nebulous and aspirational:

• During the education of radiology trainees (potential error-committers of the future), the inclusion of meta-awareness in the curriculum can at to the lowest degree make time to come independent practitioners aware of limitations and biases to which they are subject only of which they may not have been witting [43].

• The employ of radiological–pathological correlation in controlling, where possible, can avoid some erroneous assumptions, and tin can ingrain the practice of seeking histological proof of diagnoses earlier accepting them equally incontrovertible.

• Defining quality metrics, and encouraging radiologists to contribute to the collation of these metrics and to meet the benchmarks derived therefrom, can promote a civilisation of questioning and validation. This is the strategy underpinning the Irish gaelic national Radiology Quality Improvement (QI) programme, operated nether the custodianship of the Faculty of Radiologists of The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland [49]. This program has involved the development and implementation of information technology tools to collect peer review and other QI activities on a countrywide basis through interconnected PACS/radiology information systems (RIS), and to analyse the information centrally, with a view to establishing national benchmarks of QI metrics (e.yard. percentage of reports with peer review, prospectively or retrospectively, cases reviewed at QI [formerly discrepancy] meetings, number of instances of communication of unexpected clinically urgent reports, etc.) and encouraging radiology departments to meet those benchmarks. Radiology departments and larger healthcare agencies elsewhere are engaged in similar efforts [50].

• The utilize of structured reporting has been advocated equally an error reduction strategy. Certainly, this has value in some types of studies, and has been shown to improve report content, comprehensiveness and clarity in trunk CT. Furthermore, over 80% of referring clinicians prefer standardised reports, using templates and separate organ organisation headings [51]. A potential downside to the use of such standardised reports is the risk that unexpected significant findings outside the specific surface area of clinical business organization may be missed by a clinician reading a standardised report under time pressure, and focusing merely on the segment of the report that matches the pre-examination clinical business. Careful composition of a report determination past the reporting radiologist should minimise this chance.

• Radiologists should pay appropriate attention to the structure, content and language of fifty-fifty those reports where standardised study templates are not being used. With modern PACS/RIS systems using embedded voice-recognition dictation, radiologists must accept on the task of proofreading and correcting their ain dictation, a job many have delegated to transcriptionists in the by. This tin can be considered as both a contribution to workload and an opportunity: acting as our own proofreaders gives u.s.a. the facility to tweak our initial dictation to optimise its comprehensibility, and to brand reading and understanding it easy. We should embrace this opportunity rather than lament about the time lost to this activeness, and we should ensure that we train our futurity colleagues in this fundamental task of articulate, constructive communication.

• The use of computer-aided detection certainly has a role in minimising the likelihood of missing some radiologic abnormalities, especially in mammography and lung nodule detection on CT, but carries the negative result of the increased sensitivity being accompanied by decreased specificity [43]; radiologist input remains essential to sorting the wheat from the chaff.

• Accommodative relaxation (shifting the focal point from most to far, or vice versa) is an effective strategy for reducing visual fatigue, and should exist performed at least twice per hr during prolonged radiology reporting [43].

• Error scoring: Heretofore, much of the radiology literature on this topic has emphasised identification and scoring of errors [52], and this accent has undoubtedly contributed to the understanding of radiology software developers and vendors such that they accept put considerable try into embedding error scoring systems in many QI and PACS/RIS systems [53]. This does not mean that nosotros should be hidebound by these scoring systems. In 2014, the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) stated that "grading or scoring errors…was unreliable or subjective,….of questionable value, with poor agreement." They went on to bespeak out that a scoring culture could fuel a blaming culture, and they highlighted the danger of deliberate or malicious misuse of an error scoring system in the pursuit of personal grievances [54]. U.s. experience with RadPeer scoring has been similar, leading to an overemphasis on scoring and underemphasis on commenting, and low compliance with little feedback [55]. Marked variability in inter-rater agreement has been plant in the assignment of RadPeer scores to radiological discrepancies [56]. Over time, in response to greater feel with its use, the language and scoring system in RadPeer has been modified [57]. Therefore, the emphasis on because cases of fault or discrepancy is moving away from the assignment of specific scores, and towards fostering a shared learning experience [58].

• QI (discrepancy) meetings: Studies take recently shown that the introduction of a virtual platform for QI meetings, allowing radiologists to review cases and submit feedback on a common information technology (It) platform at a time of their choosing (as opposed to gathering all participants in a room at i time for the meeting), can significantly improve attendance and participation in these exercises, and thus increase bachelor learning [59, 60]. This scenario likewise removes the potential for negative "point-scoring" past radiologists among one another at meetings requiring participant physical omnipresence. Presenting a small number of key images (chosen by the coming together convener), as opposed to using the full PACS study file, is a mode to reduce the potential for loss of anonymity (of the patient and the reporting radiologist) during QI meetings, while maintaining the meeting focus of the key learning points [61]. Locally adjusted models of these meetings may be required in social club to ensure maximum radiologist participation and to conform those who work exclusively in subspecialty areas or via teleradiology [62]

• The Swedish eCare Feedback programme has been running for a number of years, based on extensive double-reporting, identification of cases where disagreement occurs, and commonage written report of those cases for learning points [30].

• The traditional medical approach to error and perceived underperformance has been to "name, shame and arraign", which is based on the perception that medical mistakes should not be fabricated, and are indicative of personal and professional person failure [10, 30, 63]. Inevitably, this approach tends to drive mistake recognition and reporting underground, with the consequent loss of opportunities for learning and process improvement. A better approach is to adopt a system-centred approach, focusing on identifying what happened, why it happened, and what tin can be done to forestall it from happening over again: the concept of "root cause analysis" [64].

• Hybrids are possible. In 2012, Hussain et al. published their feel in using a focused peer review process involving a multi-stage review of serious discrepancies identified with RadPeer scoring, which then had the potential to lead to punitive actions being imposed on the reporting radiologist [65].

• Much has been made of the parallels between the aviation manufacture and medicine in error reporting and management, frequently focusing on the great differences between the two in terms of grooming, supervision, support and continuous assessment of performance [66]. Larsen elegantly outlines the unhelpfulness of applying RadPeer-blazon scoring to aviation incidents, and draws the analogy of complacency in allocating a low score to an incident that could still have led to catastrophe: "[I]t is a question of studying the what, when and how of an event, or to simply focus on the who…..Peer review can either serve as a autobus or a judge, merely information technology cannot successfully practice both at the same time" [53]. Certainly, fault measurement lonely does not lead to improved performance, and error reporting systems are not reliable measures of individual performance [53], but utilising identified cases of error for not-judgemental group learning tin facilitate identification of system factors that contribute to errors, and can have a significant role in overall performance comeback.

Interestingly, in those instances where the adjustment of radiologists' working conditions in an try to reduce fault (limiting fatigue by adjusting work hours, avoiding pressure to maintain work rate, minimising interruptions and distractions) has been studied, these adjustments have had a negligible effect on error reduction (like to the results of introducing de-biasing algorithms to controlling in other specialties, as mentioned above) [1].

Conclusion

A clinician referring a patient for a radiological investigation is mostly looking for a number of things in the ensuing radiologist'due south report: accuracy and completeness of identification of relevant findings, a coherent opinion regarding the underlying cause of any abnormalities and, where appropriate, guidance on what other investigations may be helpful. The radiologist's responses to these needs will depend to some extent on the individual; some of us always strive to include the likely right diagnosis in our reports, but this can sometimes be at the expense of an exhaustive list of differential diagnoses or an incoherent written report. Others take the view that information technology is more helpful to produce a clear report, with expert guidance, but accepting that we may be correct only some (hopefully near) of the time. The question equally to which is the ameliorate approach is open to argument; I tend towards the latter view, only taking this arroyo demands a mutual understanding between referrer and radiologist of our limitations. When I was a trainee, 1 of the consultants with whom I worked reported normal chest x-rays as "chest: negative". At the time, I thought this style of reporting was a little thin. With feel, I've come to empathise that this brevity captured the essence of the trust needed between a referring doctor and a radiologist. Both sides of the transaction (and the patients in the middle) must understand and take a certain fallibility, which tin can never be completely eliminated. The commoditization of radiology and the increasing apply of teleradiology services, which militate against the development of relationships between referrers and radiologists, remove some potential opportunities to develop this trust. Of class it is our responsibleness to minimise the limitations on our operation where possible; some of the strategies discussed above can help with this. Simply, fundamentally, the reporting of radiological investigations is not always an exact scientific discipline; it is more than the art of applying scientific knowledge and understanding to a palette of greys, trying to winnow the relevant and important from the insignificant, seeking to ensure the word-movie we create coheres to a clear and accurate whole, and aiming to be conscientious advisors regarding advisable next steps. As radiologists, we are sifters of information and artists of communication; these responsibilities must exist understood for the imperfect processes they are.

So, in respond to the question posed in this paper's championship, errors/discrepancies in radiology are both inevitable and avoidable. That is, errors volition always happen, but some can be avoided, by careful attention to the reasoning processes we utilize, sensation of potential biases and system problems which tin can lead to mistakes, and utilise of any appropriate available strategies to minimise these negative influences. But if we imagine that any strategy can totally eliminate mistake in radiology, we are fooling both ourselves and the patients who have their guidance from united states.

References

1. Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH. Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of fault in radiology and strategies for fault reduction. Radiographics. 2015;35:1668–1676. doi: 10.1148/rg.2015150023. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. Imperial Higher of Radiologists (2006) Standards for the reporting and estimation of imaging investigations. RCR, London

iii. Robinson PJA. Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image. BJR. 1997;seventy:1085–1098. doi: ten.1259/bjr.seventy.839.9536897. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

4. New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1993 Oxford, p 2007

5. Berlin L, Berlin JW. Malpractice and radiologists in Melt Canton, IL: trends in xx years of litigation. AJR. 1995;165:781–788. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.4.7676967. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

half-dozen. Berlin L. Hindsight bias. AJR. 2000;175:597–601. doi: 10.2214/ajr.175.3.1750597. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

vii. Caldwell C, Seamone ER. Excusable neglect in malpractice suits confronting radiologists: a proposed jury instruction to recognize the human condition. Ann Health Law. 2007;16:43–77. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

viii. Keillor G. A prairie home companion. American public media 1974–2016

nine. O'Boyle East, Aguinis H. The all-time and the rest: revisiting the norm of normality in private performance. Pers Psychol. 2012;65:79–119. doi: x.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01239.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

ten. Fitzgerald R. Error in radiology. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:938–946. doi: 10.1053/crad.2001.0858. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Goddard P, Leslie A, Jones A, Wakeley C, Kabala J. Error in radiology. Br J Radiol. 2001;74:949–951. doi: x.1259/bjr.74.886.740949. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Forrest JV, Friedman PJ. Radiologic errors in patients with lung cancer. Westward J Med. 1981;134:485–490. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Muhm JR, Miller Nosotros, Fontana RS, Sanderson DR, Uhlenhopp MA. Lung cancer detected during a screening programme using four-month chest radiographs. Radiology. 1983;148:609–615. doi: ten.1148/radiology.148.3.6308709. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA. Previous mammograms in patients with palpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. AJR. 1993;161:1167–1172. doi: x.2214/ajr.161.half dozen.8249720. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Quekel LGBA, Kessels AGH, Goei R, van Engelshoven JMA. Miss charge per unit of lung cancer on the chest radiograph in clinical practice. Breast. 1999;115:720–724. doi: 10.1378/breast.115.3.720. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. Markus JB, Somers S, O'Malley BP, Stevenson GW. Double-contrast barium enema studies; consequence of multiple reading on perception error. Radiology. 1990;175:155–156. doi: x.1148/radiology.175.1.2315474. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Brady AP, Stevenson GW, Stevenson I. Colorectal cancer overlooked at barium enema examination and colonoscopy: a continuing perceptual problem. Radiology. 1994;192:373–378. doi: x.1148/radiology.192.2.8029400. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

eighteen. Robinson PJ, Wilson D, Coral A, Murphy A, Verow P. Variation betwixt experienced observers in the estimation of accident and emergency radiographs. Br J Radiol. 1999;72:323–330. doi: x.1259/bjr.72.856.10474490. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

nineteen. Tudor GR, Finlay D, Taub N. An assessment of inter-observer agreement and accuracy when reporting plain radiographs. Clin Radiol. 1997;52:235–238. doi: 10.1016/S0009-9260(97)80280-2. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Siewert B, Sosna J, McNamara A, Raptopoulos 5, Kruskal JB. Missed lesions at abdominal oncologic CT: lessons learned from quality assurance. Radiographics. 2008;28:623–638. doi: 10.1148/rg.283075188. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Briggs GM, Flynn PA, Worthington M, Rennie I, McKinstry CS. The function of specialist neuroradiology 2d opinion reporting: is there added value ? Clin Radiol. 2008;63:791–795. doi: x.1016/j.crad.2007.12.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Berlin L. Radiologic errors and malpractice: a blurry distinction. AJR. 2007;189:517–522. doi: x.2214/AJR.07.2209. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Damges M, Humphrey L. Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):256–267. doi: 10.7326/M15-0970. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. Abujudeh HH, Boland GW, Kaewlai R, Rabiner P, Halpern EF, Gazelle GS, Thrall JH. Intestinal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(eight):1952–1957. doi: x.1007/s00330-010-1763-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Roosen J, Frans E, Wilmer A, Knockaert DC, Bobbers H. Comparison of premortem clinical diagnoses in critically sick patients and subsequent autopsy findings. Mayo Clin Proc. 2000;75:562–567. doi: 10.4065/75.half dozen.562. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. Establish of Medicine Commission on the Quality of Health Care in America (2000) To Err is human: building a safer wellness organization. Institute of medicine. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068371/html/

27. Renfrew DL, Franken EA, Berbaum KS, Weigelt FH, Abu-Yousef MM. Fault in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a trouble case conference. Radiology. 1992;183:145–150. doi: 10.1148/radiology.183.1.1549661. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Kim YW, Mansfield LT. Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perceptuated errors. AJR. 2014;202:465–470. doi: ten.2214/AJR.thirteen.11493. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Smith M. Mistake and variation in diagnostic radiography. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas; 1967. [Google Scholar]

30. Fitzgerald R. Radiological mistake: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and squad working. Eur Radiol. 2005;xv:1760–1767. doi: 10.1007/s00330-005-2662-8. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. McGurk S, Brauer K, Macfarlane Tv set, Duncan KA. The effect of vocalisation recognition software on comparative error rates in radiology reports. Br J Radiol. 2008;81(970):767–770. doi: 10.1259/bjr/20698753. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

33. Brady A, Laoide RÓ, McCarthy P, McDermott R. Discrepancy and error in radiology: concepts, causes and consequences. Ulster Med J. 2012;81(1):3–9. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Dalla Palma L, Stacul F, Meduri S, Geitung JT. Relationships between radiologists and clinicians: results from three surveys. Clin Radiol. 2000;55:602–605. doi: 10.1053/crad.2000.0495. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

35. Fitzgerald RF. Commentary on: workload of consultant radiologists in a large DGH and how it compares to international benchmarks. Clin Radiol. 2012 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Berlin L. Liability of interpreting too many radiographs. AJR. 2000;175:17–22. doi: 10.2214/ajr.175.i.1750017. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Royal College of Radiologists (2012) Investing in the clinical radiology workforce - the quality and efficiency case. RCR, London

38. Brady AP. Measuring consultant radiologist workload: method and results from a national survey. Insights Imaging. 2011;ii:247–260. doi: 10.1007/s13244-011-0094-three. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Brady AP. Measuring radiologist workload: how to practice it, and why information technology matters. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(xi):2315–2317. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2195-2. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

xl. Faculty of radiologists, RCSI (2011) Measuring consultant radiologist workload in Ireland: rationale, methodology and results from a national survey. Dublin

41. Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM, Kim J. Long radiology workdays reduce detection and accommodation accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(9):698–704. doi: ten.1016/j.jacr.2010.03.004. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. Gaba DM, Howard SK. Fatigue among clinicians and the condom of patients. NEJM. 2002;347:1249–1255. doi: x.1056/NEJMsa020846. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Lee CS, et al. Cognitive and arrangement factors contributing to diagnostic fault in radiology. AJR. 2013;201:611–617. doi: ten.2214/AJR.12.10375. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Drew T, Vo MLH, Wolfe JM. The invisible gorilla strikes again: sustained inattentional incomprehension in expert observers. Psychol Sci. 2013;24:1848–1853. doi: x.1177/0956797613479386. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

45. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and dull. London: Penguin; 2011. [Google Scholar]

46. Jones DN, Thomas MJW, Mandel CJ, Grimm J, Hanford Northward, Schultz TJ, Ranchman W. Where failures occur in the imaging care cycle: lessons from the radiology events register. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:593–602. doi: ten.1016/j.jacr.2010.03.013. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

47. Osler, Sir William (1849–1919) Aequanimitas, with other addresses, instructor and student

48. Kruskal JB. Quality initiatives in radiology: historical perspectives for an emerging field. Radiographics. 2008;28:three–v. doi: 10.1148/rg.281075199. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

49. Kinesthesia of Radiologists, RCSI (2010) Guidelines for the implementation of a national quality assurance programme in radiology. Dublin

l. Eisenberg RL, Yamada G, Yam CS, Spirn PW, Kruskal JB. Electronic messaging system for communicating important only not emergent, abnormal raging results. Radiology. 2010;257:724–731. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10101015. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

51. Bosmans JML, Weyler JJ, Schepper AM, Parizel PM. The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians. Results of the Cover and ROVER surveys. Radiology. 2011;259:184–195. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10101045. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

52. Royal College of Radiologists (2007) Standards for radiology discrepancy meetings. RCR, London

53. Larson DB, Nance JJ. Rethinking peer review: what aviation can teach radiology about performance improvement. Radiology. 2011;259:626–632. doi: x.1148/radiol.11102222. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

54. Royal Higher of Radiologists (2014) Quality balls in radiology reporting: peer feedback. RCR, London

55. Swanson JO, Thapa MM, Iyer RS, Otto RK, Weinberger E. Optimising peer review: a year of experience after instituting a existent-fourth dimension annotate-enhanced program at a children's hospital. AJR. 2012;198:1121–1125. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.6724. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

56. Bender LC, Linna KF, Meier EN, Anzai Y, Gunn ML. Interrater agreement in the evaluation of discrepant imaging findings with the Radpeer system. AJR. 2010;199:1320–1327. doi: ten.2214/AJR.12.8972. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

57. Jackson VP, Cushing T, Abujudeh HH, Borgstede JP, Mentum KW, Grimes CK, Larson DB, Larson PA, Pyatt RS, Jr, Thorwarth WT. RADPEER scoring white paper. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:21–25. doi: ten.1016/j.jacr.2008.06.011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

58. Majestic College of Radiologists (2014) Standards for learning from discrepancies meetings. London: RCR, London

59. Carlton Jones AL, Roddie ME. Implementation of a virtual learning from discrepancy meeting: a method to improve omnipresence and facilitate shared learning from radiological mistake. Clin Radiol. 2016;71:583–590. doi: ten.1016/j.crad.2016.01.021. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

threescore. Spencer P. Commentary on implementation of a virtual learning from discrepancy meeting: a method to improve omnipresence and facilitate shared learning from radiological error. Clin Radiol. 2016;71:591–592. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.01.020. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

61. Owens EJ, Taylor NR, Howlett DC. Perceptual type error in everyday practice. Clin Radiol. 2016;71:593–601. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.xi.024. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

62. McCoubrie P, Fitzgerald R. Commentary o discrepancies in discrepancy meetings. Clin Radiol. 2013 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

64. White potato JFA. Root cause analysis of medical errors. Ir Med J. 2008;101:36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

65. Hussain S, Hussain JS, Karam A, Vijayaraghavan G. Focused peer review: the stop game of peer review. J Am Coll Radiol. 2012;9:430–433. doi: x.1016/j.jacr.2012.01.015. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

66. MacDonald E. Ane pilot son, one medical son. BMJ. 2002;324:1105. doi: x.1136/bmj.324.7345.1105. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

francisyoust1995.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5265198/

Share this post