Number Of Major Discrepancies Research Articles

Does simulation training result in improved on-call outcomes among newly appointed radiology registrars?

To quantify the impact of a marked increase in radiology trainee numbers and the compensatory introduction of formal simulation on-call training by investigating the discrepancy rates among on-call radiologists in training before and after the introduction of structured simulation training. The first 100 cases reported by a cohort of Specialty Trainee Year 2 doctors (ST2), having commenced on-call reporting, were analysed. This included registrars working in two major tertiary centres. Two groups of registrars were compared directly: those who undertook the simulation training and those who did not. Discrepancies were divided by severity into minor, moderate, and major categories. The criteria for each category were based on previously published literature. Twelve registrars from 2017 were compared with 12 from previous years (two in 2013, four in 2014, and six in 2015); 2,320 cases were analysed. There was a statistically significant reduction in the total number of discrepancies (p=0.01) made by registrars who underwent simulation training. A similar improvement was observed in the number of major discrepancies; however, this was not statistically significant. The present study shows that simulation training successfully increases competency in on-call work. Despite doubling the number of doctors in training, discrepancy rates did not worsen and in fact improved.

Effect of Shift, Schedule, and Volume on Interpretive Accuracy: A Retrospective Analysis of 2.9 Million Radiologic Examinations.

Purpose To determine whether there is an association between radiologist shift length, schedule, or examination volume and interpretive accuracy. Materials and Methods This study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. A retrospective analysis of all major discrepancies from a 2015 quality assurance database of a teleradiology practice was performed. Board-certified radiologists provided initial preliminary interpretations. Discrepancies were identified during a secondary review by a practicing radiologist or through an internal quality assurance process and were vetted through a consensus radiology quality assurance committee. Unique anonymous radiologist identifiers were used to link the discrepancies to radiologists' shifts and schedules. Data were analyzed by using analysis of variance, t test, or χ2 test. Results A total of 4294 major discrepancies resulted from 2 922 377 examinations (0.15%). There was a significant difference for shift length (P < .0001) and volume (P < .0001) for shifts with versus those without discrepancies. On average, errors occurred a mean (± standard deviation) of 8.97 hours ± 2.28 into the shift (median, 10 hours; interquartile range, 2.0 hours). Significantly more errors occurred late in shifts than early (P < .0001), peaking between 10 and 12 hours. The number of major discrepancies in a single shift ranged from one to four, with a significant difference in the number of discrepancies as a function of study volume (volume for all shifts, 67.60 ± 60.24; volume for shifts with major discrepancies, 118.96 ± 66.89; P < .001). Despite a trend for more discrepancies after more consecutive days worked, the difference was not significant (P = .0893). Conclusion Longer shifts and higher diagnostic examination volumes are associated with increased major interpretive discrepancies. These are more likely to occur later in a shift, peaking after the 10th hour of work. © RSNA, 2017.

Comparison of Direct and Standardized Disk Diffusion Susceptibility Testing of Urine Cultures

A comparison between direct and standardized disk diffusion tests was made on a total of 300 urine specimens containing >/=10(5) organisms/ml. Of these, 246 represented pure cultures and 54 represented mixed cultures. The number of major discrepancies per organism tested in pure culture was 18 (7.3%) and in mixed cultures it was 23 (42.6%). The percentage of major discrepancies per total number of antimicrobial drug comparisons made was 1.4%. Although this procedure may be of value in selected cases with pure cultures of organisms present in quantities >/=10(5)/ml, its use on a routine basis is not recommended.