Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Insights into Imaging
Published in: Insights into Imaging 1/2017

Open Access 01-02-2017 | Review

Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable?

Author: Adrian P. Brady

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Errors and discrepancies in radiology practice are uncomfortably common, with an estimated day-to-day rate of 3–5% of studies reported, and much higher rates reported in many targeted studies. Nonetheless, the meaning of the terms “error” and “discrepancy” and the relationship to medical negligence are frequently misunderstood. This review outlines the incidence of such events, the ways they can be categorized to aid understanding, and potential contributing factors, both human- and system-based. Possible strategies to minimise error are considered, along with the means of dealing with perceived underperformance when it is identified. The inevitability of imperfection is explained, while the importance of striving to minimise such imperfection is emphasised.

Teaching Points

• Discrepancies between radiology reports and subsequent patient outcomes are not inevitably errors.
• Radiologist reporting performance cannot be perfect, and some errors are inevitable.
• Error or discrepancy in radiology reporting does not equate negligence.
• Radiologist errors occur for many reasons, both human- and system-derived.
• Strategies exist to minimise error causes and to learn from errors made.
Literature
1.
Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH (2015) Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. Radiographics 35:1668–1676CrossRefPubMed
2.
Royal College of Radiologists (2006) Standards for the reporting and interpretation of imaging investigations. RCR, London
3.
Robinson PJA (1997) Radiology’s Achilles’ heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image. BJR 70:1085–1098CrossRefPubMed
4.
New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1993 Oxford, p 2007
5.
Berlin L, Berlin JW (1995) Malpractice and radiologists in Cook County, IL: trends in 20 years of litigation. AJR 165:781–788CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Caldwell C, Seamone ER (2007) Excusable neglect in malpractice suits against radiologists: a proposed jury instruction to recognize the human condition. Ann Health Law 16:43–77PubMed
8.
Keillor G. A prairie home companion. American public media 1974–2016
9.
O’Boyle E, Aguinis H (2012) The best and the rest: revisiting the norm of normality in individual performance. Pers Psychol 65:79–119CrossRef
10.
11.
Goddard P, Leslie A, Jones A, Wakeley C, Kabala J (2001) Error in radiology. Br J Radiol 74:949–951CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Muhm JR, Miller WE, Fontana RS, Sanderson DR, Uhlenhopp MA (1983) Lung cancer detected during a screening program using four-month chest radiographs. Radiology 148:609–615CrossRefPubMed
14.
Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA (1993) Previous mammograms in patients with palpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. AJR 161:1167–1172CrossRefPubMed
15.
Quekel LGBA, Kessels AGH, Goei R, van Engelshoven JMA (1999) Miss rate of lung cancer on the chest radiograph in clinical practice. Chest 115:720–724CrossRefPubMed
16.
Markus JB, Somers S, O’Malley BP, Stevenson GW (1990) Double-contrast barium enema studies; effect of multiple reading on perception error. Radiology 175:155–156CrossRefPubMed
17.
Brady AP, Stevenson GW, Stevenson I (1994) Colorectal cancer overlooked at barium enema examination and colonoscopy: a continuing perceptual problem. Radiology 192:373–378CrossRefPubMed
18.
Robinson PJ, Wilson D, Coral A, Murphy A, Verow P (1999) Variation between experienced observers in the interpretation of accident and emergency radiographs. Br J Radiol 72:323–330CrossRefPubMed
19.
Tudor GR, Finlay D, Taub N (1997) An assessment of inter-observer agreement and accuracy when reporting plain radiographs. Clin Radiol 52:235–238CrossRefPubMed
20.
Siewert B, Sosna J, McNamara A, Raptopoulos V, Kruskal JB (2008) Missed lesions at abdominal oncologic CT: lessons learned from quality assurance. Radiographics 28:623–638CrossRefPubMed
21.
Briggs GM, Flynn PA, Worthington M, Rennie I, McKinstry CS (2008) The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: is there added value ? Clin Radiol 63:791–795CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Damges M, Humphrey L (2016) Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 164(4):256–267CrossRefPubMed
24.
Abujudeh HH, Boland GW, Kaewlai R, Rabiner P, Halpern EF, Gazelle GS, Thrall JH (2010) Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. Eur Radiol 20(8):1952–1957CrossRefPubMed
25.
Roosen J, Frans E, Wilmer A, Knockaert DC, Bobbers H (2000) Comparison of premortem clinical diagnoses in critically ill patients and subsequent autopsy findings. Mayo Clin Proc 75:562–567CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Renfrew DL, Franken EA, Berbaum KS, Weigelt FH, Abu-Yousef MM (1992) Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference. Radiology 183:145–150CrossRefPubMed
28.
Kim YW, Mansfield LT (2014) Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perceptuated errors. AJR 202:465–470CrossRefPubMed
29.
Smith M (1967) Error and variation in diagnostic radiography. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield
30.
Fitzgerald R (2005) Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and team working. Eur Radiol 15:1760–1767CrossRefPubMed
31.
McGurk S, Brauer K, Macfarlane TV, Duncan KA (2008) The effect of voice recognition software on comparative error rates in radiology reports. Br J Radiol 81(970):767–770CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
Brady A, Laoide RÓ, McCarthy P, McDermott R (2012) Discrepancy and error in radiology: concepts, causes and consequences. Ulster Med J 81(1):3–9PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Dalla Palma L, Stacul F, Meduri S, Geitung JT (2000) Relationships between radiologists and clinicians: results from three surveys. Clin Radiol 55:602–605CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
37.
Royal College of Radiologists (2012) Investing in the clinical radiology workforce - the quality and efficiency case. RCR, London
38.
39.
Brady AP (2011) Measuring radiologist workload: how to do it, and why it matters. Eur Radiol 21(11):2315–2317CrossRefPubMed
40.
Faculty of radiologists, RCSI (2011) Measuring consultant radiologist workload in Ireland: rationale, methodology and results from a national survey. Dublin
41.
Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM, Kim J (2010) Long radiology workdays reduce detection and accommodation accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol 7(9):698–704CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Gaba DM, Howard SK (2002) Fatigue among clinicians and the safety of patients. NEJM 347:1249–1255CrossRefPubMed
43.
Lee CS et al (2013) Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic error in radiology. AJR 201:611–617CrossRefPubMed
44.
45.
Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin, London
46.
Jones DN, Thomas MJW, Mandel CJ, Grimm J, Hanford N, Schultz TJ, Ranchman W (2010) Where failures occur in the imaging care cycle: lessons from the radiology events register. J Am Coll Radiol 7:593–602CrossRefPubMed
47.
Osler, Sir William (1849–1919) Aequanimitas, with other addresses, teacher and student
48.
Kruskal JB (2008) Quality initiatives in radiology: historical perspectives for an emerging field. Radiographics 28:3–5CrossRefPubMed
49.
Faculty of Radiologists, RCSI (2010) Guidelines for the implementation of a national quality assurance programme in radiology. Dublin
50.
Eisenberg RL, Yamada K, Yam CS, Spirn PW, Kruskal JB (2010) Electronic messaging system for communicating important but non emergent, abnormal raging results. Radiology 257:724–731CrossRefPubMed
51.
Bosmans JML, Weyler JJ, Schepper AM, Parizel PM (2011) The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians. Results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. Radiology 259:184–195CrossRefPubMed
52.
Royal College of Radiologists (2007) Standards for radiology discrepancy meetings. RCR, London
53.
Larson DB, Nance JJ (2011) Rethinking peer review: what aviation can teach radiology about performance improvement. Radiology 259:626–632CrossRefPubMed
54.
Royal College of Radiologists (2014) Quality assurance in radiology reporting: peer feedback. RCR, London
55.
Swanson JO, Thapa MM, Iyer RS, Otto RK, Weinberger E (2012) Optimising peer review: a year of experience after instituting a real-time comment-enhanced program at a children’s hospital. AJR 198:1121–1125CrossRefPubMed
56.
Bender LC, Linna KF, Meier EN, Anzai Y, Gunn ML (2010) Interrater agreement in the evaluation of discrepant imaging findings with the Radpeer system. AJR 199:1320–1327CrossRef
57.
Jackson VP, Cushing T, Abujudeh HH, Borgstede JP, Chin KW, Grimes CK, Larson DB, Larson PA, Pyatt RS Jr, Thorwarth WT (2009) RADPEER scoring white paper. J Am Coll Radiol 6:21–25CrossRefPubMed
58.
Royal College of Radiologists (2014) Standards for learning from discrepancies meetings. London: RCR, London
59.
Carlton Jones AL, Roddie ME (2016) Implementation of a virtual learning from discrepancy meeting: a method to improve attendance and facilitate shared learning from radiological error. Clin Radiol 71:583–590CrossRefPubMed
60.
Spencer P (2016) Commentary on implementation of a virtual learning from discrepancy meeting: a method to improve attendance and facilitate shared learning from radiological error. Clin Radiol 71:591–592CrossRefPubMed
61.
Owens EJ, Taylor NR, Howlett DC (2016) Perceptual type error in everyday practice. Clin Radiol 71:593–601CrossRefPubMed
62.
63.
64.
Murphy JFA (2008) Root cause analysis of medical errors. Ir Med J 101:36PubMed
65.
Hussain S, Hussain JS, Karam A, Vijayaraghavan G (2012) Focused peer review: the end game of peer review. J Am Coll Radiol 9:430–433CrossRefPubMed
66.
Metadata
Title
Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable?
Author
Adrian P. Brady
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-016-0534-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Insights into Imaging 1/2017 Go to the issue

Review

Unexpected hosts: imaging parasitic diseases

Statement

Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women

Report

Summary of the proceedings of the international forum 2016: “Imaging referral guidelines and clinical decision support - how can radiologists implement imaging referral guidelines in clinical routine?”

Review

Imaging of plantar fascia disorders: findings on plain radiography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging

Pictorial Review

Beyond bronchitis: a review of the congenital and acquired abnormalities of the bronchus

Pictorial Review

Radiological diagnosis of perinephric pathology: pictorial essay 2015