Abstract
Diagnostic errors in radiology are classified as perception or interpretation errors. This study determined whether specific conditions differed when perception or interpretation errors occurred during neuroradiology image interpretation. In a sample of 254 clinical error cases in diagnostic neuroradiology, we classified errors as perception or interpretation errors, then characterized imaging technique, interpreting radiologist's experience, anatomic location of the abnormality, disease etiology, time of day, and day of the week. Interpretation and perception errors were compared with hours worked per shift, cases read per shift, average cases read per shift hour, and the order of case during the shift when the error occurred. Perception and interpretation errors were 74.8% (n = 190) and 25.2% (n = 64) of errors, respectively. Logistic regression analyses showed that the odds of an interpretation error were 2 times greater (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.05-4.15; P = .04) for neuroradiology attending physicians with ≤5 years of experience. Interpretation errors were more likely with MR imaging compared with CT (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.09-4.01; P = .03). Infectious/inflammatory/autoimmune diseases were more frequently associated with interpretation errors (P = .04). Perception errors were associated with faster reading rates (6.01 versus 5.03 cases read per hour; P = .004) and occurred later during the shift (24th-versus-18th case; P = .04). Among diagnostic neuroradiology error cases, interpretation-versus-perception errors are affected by the neuroradiologist's experience, technique, and the volume and rate of cases read. Recognition of these risk factors may help guide programs for error reduction in clinical neuroradiology services.
Highlights
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSEDiagnostic errors in radiology are classified as perception or interpretation errors
Logistic regression analyses showed that the odds of an interpretation error were 2 times greater (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.05– 4.15; P ϭ .04) for neuroradiology attending physicians with Յ5 years of experience
Interpretation errors were more likely with MR imaging compared with CT (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.09 – 4.01; P ϭ .03)
Summary
Fellow, and rotating resident in the neu- standard final diagnoses (such as surgical pathology distinguishroradiology division was instructed to place any error case they ing meningioma from schwannoma), for interpretation errors, identified during clinical practice into a specified digital folder in we emphasized missing differential diagnoses that both neuroraour PACS. This requires a single-click drag-and-drop function diologists thought should have been included in the radiology facilitating addition of relevant cases to the cohort. 2-tailed t tests at the P Ͻ .05 significance level were performed to compare the hours worked per shift, cases read per shift, cases read per shift hour, and the order of the error case during the shift, between perception and interpretation errors
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call