Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 9/2016

01-09-2016

Diagnostic errors in abdominopelvic CT interpretation: characterization based on report addenda

Authors: Andrew B. Rosenkrantz, Neil K. Bansal

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 9/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the article is to characterize the diagnostic errors in abdominopelvic CT interpretation through review of radiology report addenda.

Methods

We searched abdominopelvic CT reports for the word “addendum” over a nearly seven-year period. Addenda were reviewed to identify those reporting a diagnostic error. Cases were characterized by a spectrum of features.

Results

709 addenda describing 785 diagnostic errors were identified, representing approximately 0.5% of searched reports. 84.1% were a new finding, 5.1% an upgrade in severity of an originally reported finding, 3.9% a downgrade in severity, and 6.9% other modification. The most common anatomic sites, as well as the most common missed abnormality per site, were vasculature (9.8%, atherosclerosis/thrombus), abdominal wall (8.3%, ventral hernia), bone [7.4%, osseous lesion (not clearly benign)], kidney [6.9%, renal lesion (not clearly benign)], liver (6.1%, steatosis), and ureter (5.1%, calculus). Of 209 addenda providing a reason for the change, 30.6% related to comparison with prior imaging, 22.5% additional surgical history, 13.4% referrer request for re-review, 8.6% additional signs, symptoms, or lab abnormality, 8.6% additional known diagnosis, 5.7% attention to patient gender, 5.3% multi-planar reconstructions, and 5.3% consultation with other radiologist.

Conclusion

Missed findings rather than misinterpretations of detected abnormalities were the most common reason for abdominopelvic CT report addenda. Awareness of the most common misses by anatomic location may help guide quality assurance initiatives. A wide variety of contributing factors were identified. Informatics and workflow optimization may be warranted to facilitate radiologists’ access to all available patient-related data, as well as communication with other physicians, and thereby help reduce diagnostic errors.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH (2015) Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. Radiographics 35(6):1668–1676CrossRefPubMed Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH (2015) Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. Radiographics 35(6):1668–1676CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Brigham LR, Mansouri M, Abujudeh HH (2015) JOURNAL CLUB: Radiology Report Addenda: a self-report approach to error identification, quantification, and classification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(6):1230–1239CrossRefPubMed Brigham LR, Mansouri M, Abujudeh HH (2015) JOURNAL CLUB: Radiology Report Addenda: a self-report approach to error identification, quantification, and classification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(6):1230–1239CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
go back to reference Ashman CJ, Yu JS, Wolfman D (2000) Satisfaction of search in osteoradiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(2):541–544CrossRefPubMed Ashman CJ, Yu JS, Wolfman D (2000) Satisfaction of search in osteoradiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(2):541–544CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Donald JJ, Barnard SA (2012) Common patterns in 558 diagnostic radiology errors. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 56(2):173–178CrossRefPubMed Donald JJ, Barnard SA (2012) Common patterns in 558 diagnostic radiology errors. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 56(2):173–178CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Siegle RL, Baram EM, Reuter SR, et al. (1998) Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals. Acad Radiol 5(3):148–154CrossRefPubMed Siegle RL, Baram EM, Reuter SR, et al. (1998) Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals. Acad Radiol 5(3):148–154CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Abujudeh HH, Boland GW, Kaewlai R, et al. (2010) Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. Eur Radiol 20(8):1952–1957CrossRefPubMed Abujudeh HH, Boland GW, Kaewlai R, et al. (2010) Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. Eur Radiol 20(8):1952–1957CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Borgstede JP, Lewis RS, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH (2004) RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J Am Coll Radiol 1(1):59–65CrossRefPubMed Borgstede JP, Lewis RS, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH (2004) RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J Am Coll Radiol 1(1):59–65CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Soffa DJ, Lewis RS, Sunshine JH, Bhargavan M (2004) Disagreement in interpretation: a method for the development of benchmarks for quality assurance in imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 1(3):212–217CrossRefPubMed Soffa DJ, Lewis RS, Sunshine JH, Bhargavan M (2004) Disagreement in interpretation: a method for the development of benchmarks for quality assurance in imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 1(3):212–217CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Quekel LG, Kessels AG, Goei R, van Engelshoven JM (1999) Miss rate of lung cancer on the chest radiograph in clinical practice. Chest 115(3):720–724CrossRefPubMed Quekel LG, Kessels AG, Goei R, van Engelshoven JM (1999) Miss rate of lung cancer on the chest radiograph in clinical practice. Chest 115(3):720–724CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Kundel HL (1989) Perception errors in chest radiography. Semin Respir Med 10(3):203–210CrossRef Kundel HL (1989) Perception errors in chest radiography. Semin Respir Med 10(3):203–210CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Berlin L (2014) Radiologic errors, past, present and future. Diagnosis 1(1):79–84CrossRef Berlin L (2014) Radiologic errors, past, present and future. Diagnosis 1(1):79–84CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Diagnostic errors in abdominopelvic CT interpretation: characterization based on report addenda
Authors
Andrew B. Rosenkrantz
Neil K. Bansal
Publication date
01-09-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 9/2016
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0741-8

Other articles of this Issue 9/2016

Abdominal Radiology 9/2016 Go to the issue
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.