Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Application of the RADPEER™ scoring language to interpretation discrepancies between diagnostic radiology residents and faculty radiologists.
J Am Coll Radiol. 2012 Apr; 9(4):264-9.JA

Abstract

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were to assess the rate of discrepancies between radiology residents and faculty radiologists at an academic hospital using the RADPEER(™) scoring language and to determine if a correlation existed between assigned RADPEER score (2, 3, or 4) and the clinical significance of the error.

METHODS

Over 19 months, preliminary resident interpretations were graded using the RADPEER scoring system. A retrospective review of discrepant cases was performed to assess the percentage of discrepancy, change in clinical management, and identification of error patterns.

RESULTS

Of 2,255 preliminary interpretations, 29 discrepancies (1.29%) were judged to be potentially clinically significant. Of these, 14 (0.62%) resulted in immediate changes in clinical management. Discrepancies assigned RADPEER scores of 3 or 4 were significantly more likely to be judged clinically significant than those assigned scores of 2 (54.5% of 33 studies graded 3 or 4 and 7.7% of 142 studies graded 2, P < .0001). CT imaging generated a higher percentage of discrepancies that were predicted to be clinically significant than plain-film radiography, as well as a higher percentage of discrepancies that resulted in immediate changes in management, but the incidence of each remained low overall (≤2.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Discrepancy rates in this study are comparable with previously reported data for discrepancies between attending radiologists and those between attending radiologists and residents data. A significant correlation was observed between increasing RADPEER scores and the clinical significance of discrepancies. This study supports the use of the RADPEER scoring language as both a resident quality assurance measure and an educational tool for quality improvement.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Radiology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois 60153, USA. ezmaloney@lumc.eduNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

22469377

Citation

Maloney, Ezekiel, et al. "Application of the RADPEER™ Scoring Language to Interpretation Discrepancies Between Diagnostic Radiology Residents and Faculty Radiologists." Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, vol. 9, no. 4, 2012, pp. 264-9.
Maloney E, Lomasney LM, Schomer L. Application of the RADPEER™ scoring language to interpretation discrepancies between diagnostic radiology residents and faculty radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol. 2012;9(4):264-9.
Maloney, E., Lomasney, L. M., & Schomer, L. (2012). Application of the RADPEER™ scoring language to interpretation discrepancies between diagnostic radiology residents and faculty radiologists. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 9(4), 264-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2011.11.016
Maloney E, Lomasney LM, Schomer L. Application of the RADPEER™ Scoring Language to Interpretation Discrepancies Between Diagnostic Radiology Residents and Faculty Radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol. 2012;9(4):264-9. PubMed PMID: 22469377.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Application of the RADPEER™ scoring language to interpretation discrepancies between diagnostic radiology residents and faculty radiologists. AU - Maloney,Ezekiel, AU - Lomasney,Laurie M, AU - Schomer,Linda, PY - 2011/09/26/received PY - 2011/11/17/accepted PY - 2012/4/4/entrez PY - 2012/4/4/pubmed PY - 2012/8/9/medline SP - 264 EP - 9 JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR JO - J Am Coll Radiol VL - 9 IS - 4 N2 - PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to assess the rate of discrepancies between radiology residents and faculty radiologists at an academic hospital using the RADPEER(™) scoring language and to determine if a correlation existed between assigned RADPEER score (2, 3, or 4) and the clinical significance of the error. METHODS: Over 19 months, preliminary resident interpretations were graded using the RADPEER scoring system. A retrospective review of discrepant cases was performed to assess the percentage of discrepancy, change in clinical management, and identification of error patterns. RESULTS: Of 2,255 preliminary interpretations, 29 discrepancies (1.29%) were judged to be potentially clinically significant. Of these, 14 (0.62%) resulted in immediate changes in clinical management. Discrepancies assigned RADPEER scores of 3 or 4 were significantly more likely to be judged clinically significant than those assigned scores of 2 (54.5% of 33 studies graded 3 or 4 and 7.7% of 142 studies graded 2, P < .0001). CT imaging generated a higher percentage of discrepancies that were predicted to be clinically significant than plain-film radiography, as well as a higher percentage of discrepancies that resulted in immediate changes in management, but the incidence of each remained low overall (≤2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancy rates in this study are comparable with previously reported data for discrepancies between attending radiologists and those between attending radiologists and residents data. A significant correlation was observed between increasing RADPEER scores and the clinical significance of discrepancies. This study supports the use of the RADPEER scoring language as both a resident quality assurance measure and an educational tool for quality improvement. SN - 1558-349X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/22469377/Application_of_the_RADPEER™_scoring_language_to_interpretation_discrepancies_between_diagnostic_radiology_residents_and_faculty_radiologists_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1546-1440(11)00706-X DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -