Quality assessment of out sourced after-hours computed tomography teleradiology reports in a Central London University Hospital

Abstract

The study was designed to assess the quality of out sourced after-hours computed tomography teleradiology service reports. We evaluated 1028 patients over a time period of five month in 2009/2010 (437 female, 591 male, mean age: 51 years, range: 0–97 years) who were referred either by the A&E or other in house departments from 7 pm to 8 am for different reasons. Reporting was done by a teleradiology service provider located in the UK and Australia. Reports were assessed during the routinely performed morning meeting by a panel of in house radiologists. Assessment was done by a five point agreement scale (5=“No disagreement”, 1=“…unequivocal potential for serious morbidity or threat to life”). In 811 (79%) patients no disagreement was found, 164 (16%) were rated as category 4, 40 (4%) as category 3 (“…likelihood of harm is low”). In 13 (1.3%) patients a decision of category 2 was made (“…strong likelihood of moderate morbidity but not threat to life”). No category 1 decision was made. As this was just a discrepancy decision, a follow up of the category 2 patients was done over a period of a maximum of 6 months. In 8 (0.8%) patients the in house reports were correct, in 2 (0.2%) patients the teleradiology service provider was right and in 3 (0.3%) patients the final diagnoses remained unclear. In conclusion there was a small rate (0.8%) of proven serious misinterpretations by the teleradiology service provider, but these were less than in comparable studies with preliminary in house staff reports (1.6–24.6%).