Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking

  • Radiological Education
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Diagnostic radiology does not have objective benchmarks for acceptable levels of missed diagnoses [1]. Until now, data collection of radiological discrepancies has been very time consuming. The culture within the specialty did not encourage it. However, public concern about patient safety is increasing. There have been recent innovations in compiling radiological interpretive discrepancy rates which may facilitate radiological standard setting. However standard setting alone will not optimise radiologists’ performance or patient safety. We must use these new techniques in radiological discrepancy detection to stimulate greater knowledge sharing, targeted instruction and teamworking among radiologists. Not all radiological discrepancies are errors. Radiological discrepancy programmes must not be abused as an instrument for discrediting individual radiologists. Discrepancy rates must not be distorted as a weapon in turf battles. Radiological errors may be due to many causes and are often multifactorial. A systems approach to radiological error is required. Meaningful analysis of radiological discrepancies and errors is challenging. Valid standard setting will take time. Meanwhile, we need to develop top-up training, mentoring and rehabilitation programmes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 1:212–217.DOI 10.1016/j.jacr 2003.12.017

    Google Scholar 

  2. Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M (2001) Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ 322:517–519

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chief Medical Officer (2000) Introduction in: an organisation with a memory: report of an expert group on learning from adverse events in the NHS. Stationery Office, London, pp 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (2000) Executive summary in: to err is human: building a safer health system. National Academy Press, Washington D.C., pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  5. Stanley RJ (2004) How good does it get? Am J Roentgenol 183:1

    Google Scholar 

  6. Reason J (2000) Human error: models and management. BMJ 320:768–770

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chief Medical Officer (2000) Learning from failure: evidence and experience. An organisation with a memory. Stationery Office, London, pp 19–46

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (2000) Creating safety system in healthcare organisations. To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academy Press, Washington D.C., pp 155–201

    Google Scholar 

  9. Board of Faculty of Clinical Radiology, The Royal College of Radiologists (2001) To err is human: the case for review of reporting discrepancies. The Royal College of Radiologists, London, pp 4–12

    Google Scholar 

  10. Yoon LS, Haims AH, Brink JA, Rabinovici R, Forman HP (2002) Evaluation of an emergency radiology quality assurance program at a level 1 trauma centre: abdominal and pelvic CT studies. Radiology 224:42–46

    Google Scholar 

  11. Velmahos GC, Filli C, Vassiliu P, Nicolaou N, Radin R, Wilcox A (2001) Around-the-clock attending radiology coverage is essential to avoid mistakes in the care of trauma patients. Am Surgeon 67:1175–1177

    Google Scholar 

  12. Carney E, Kempf J, DeCarvalho V, Yudd A, Nosher J (2003) Preliminary interpretations of after-hours CT and sonography by radiology residents versus final interpretations by body imaging radiologists at a level 1 trauma center. Am J Roentgenol 181:367–373

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tilleman EHBM, Phoa SSKS, van Delden OM, Rauws EAJ, van Gulik TM, Lameris JS, Gouma DJ (2003) Re-interpretation of radiological imaging in patients referred to a tertiary referral centre with a suspected pancreatic or hepatobiliary malignancy: impact on treatment strategy. Eur Radiol 13:1095–1099. DOI 10.1007/s00330-002-1579-8

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gollub MJ, Panicek DM, Bach AM, Penalver A, Castellino RA (1999) Clinical importance of re-interpretation of body CT scans obtained elsewhere in patients referred for care at a tertiary cancer centre. Radiology 210:109–112

    Google Scholar 

  15. Loughrey GJ, Carrington BM, Anderson H, Dobson MJ, Lo Ying Ping F (1999) The value of specialist oncological radiology review of cross-sectional imaging. Clin Radiol 54:149–154

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson MR, Good CD, Penny WD, Barnes PRJ, Scadding JW (2001) Playing the odds in clinical decision making: lessons from berry aneurysms undetected by magnetic resonance angiography. BMJ 322:1347–1349

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HCW (2003) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Radiology 226:24–28; BMJ 326:41–44; Clin Radiol 58:575–580; Am J Roentgenol 181:51–56, as well as 20 other journals worldwide

    Google Scholar 

  18. deLacey G, Godwin R, Manhire A (2000) Statistical considerations. In: Clinical governance and revalidation. The Royal College of Radiologists, London, pp 20–26

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mohammed MA, Cheng KK, Rouse A, Marshall T (2001) Bristol, Shipman, and Clinical Governance: Shewhart’s forgotten lessons. Lancet 357:463–467

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hobby JL, Tom BDM, Todd C, Bearcroft PWP, Dixon AK (2000) Communication of doubt and certainty in radiological reports. Br J Radiol 73:999–1001

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hayward R (2003) VOMIT, victims of modern imaging technology—an acronym for our times. BMJ 326:1273

    Google Scholar 

  22. Board of the Faculty of Clinical Radiology, The Royal College of Radiologists (2004) Teleradiology—a guidance document for clinical radiologists. The Royal College of Radiologists, London, BFCR (04)4

    Google Scholar 

  23. Berlin L (2000) Pitfalls of the vague radiology report. Am J Roentgenol 174:1511–1518

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brealey S (2001) Review. Measuring the effects of imaging interpretation: an evaluative framework. Clin Radiol 56:341–347

    Google Scholar 

  25. Robinson PJA (1997) Radiology’s Achilles’ heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Roentgen image. Br J Radiol 70:1085–1098

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stephens S, Martin I, Dixon AK (1989) Errors in abdominal computed tomography. J Med Imaging 3:281–287

    Google Scholar 

  27. Leslie A, Jones AJ, Goddard PR (2000) The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by Radiologists. Br J Radiol 73:1052–1055

    Google Scholar 

  28. National Clinical Assessment Authority (2003) Evaluation of NCAA advice and assessment service. National Clinical Assessment Authority, London. http://www.ncaa.nhs.uk

    Google Scholar 

  29. White C (2004) Doctors mistrust systems for reporting medical mistakes. BMJ 329:12–13

    Google Scholar 

  30. Borgstede JP, Lewis RS, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH (2004) RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J Am Coll Radiol 1:59–65

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mullerad M, Hricak H, Wang L, Chen HN, Kattan MW, Scardino PT (2004) Prostate cancer: detection of extra capsular extension by genitourinary and general body radiologists at MR imaging. Radiology 232:140–146

    Google Scholar 

  32. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, Morley S, Bassett P, Atkin W, Bartram CI (2004) CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance. Eur Radiol 14:1025–1033. DOI 10.1007/s00330-004-2262-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kealey SM, Dodd JD, MacEneaney PM, Gibney RG, Malone DE (2004) Minimal preparation computed tomography instead of barium enema/colonoscopy for suspected colon cancer in frail elderly patients: an outcome analysis study. Clin Radiol 59:44–52. DOI 10.1016/j.crad.2003.08.001

    Google Scholar 

  34. Buchanan GN, Halligan S, Taylor S, Williams A, Cohen R, Bartram C (2004) MRI of fistula in ano: inter and intra observer agreement and effects of directed education. Am J Roentgenol 183:135–140

    Google Scholar 

  35. FitzGerald R (2001) Error in radiology. Clin Radiol 56:938–946

    Google Scholar 

  36. Nakielny R (2003) Setting up medical discrepancy meetings—the practicalities. CME Radiol 4:29–30

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gaba DM (2000) Anaesthesiology as a model for patient safety in healthcare. BMJ 320:785–789

    Google Scholar 

  38. McCall I (2000) Statement on standards from the Dean of the Faculty of Clinical Radiology. The Royal College of Radiologists, London, BFCR (00) 2

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rosenthal MM (1997) Promise and reality: professional self regulation and “problem colleagues”. In: Lens P, van der Wal G (eds) Problem doctors, a conspiracy of silence. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 9–29

    Google Scholar 

  40. FitzGerald R (2003) Generalists, subspecialists and teamworking. Radiol Now 20:10–12

    Google Scholar 

  41. Barry JD, Edwards P, Lewis WG, Dhariwal D, Thomas GV (2002) Special interest radiology improves the perceived pre operative stage of gastric cancer. Clin Radiol 57:984–988. DOI 10.1053/crad2002.1073

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kalbhen CL, Yetter EM, Olson MC, Posniak HV, Aranha GV (1998) Assessing the resectability of pancreatic carcinoma: the value of re-interpreting abdominal CT performed at other institutions. Am J Roentgenol 171:1571–1576

    Google Scholar 

  43. Curry NS, Cochran ST, Bissada NK (2000) Cystic renal masses: accurate Bosniak classification requires adequate renal CT. Am J Roentgenol 175:339–342

    Google Scholar 

  44. Israel GM, Hindman N, Bosniak MA (2004) Evaluation of cystic renal masses: comparison of CT and MR imaging by using the Bosniak classification system. Radiology 231:365–371. DOI10.1148/radiol.2312031025

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. FitzGerald R, Mehra R (2000) How accurate is cancer scan reporting? Hosp Med 61:637–642

    Google Scholar 

  46. Erly WK, Ashdown BC, Lucio RW, Carmody RF, Seeger JF, Alcala JN (2003) Evaluation of emergency CT scans of the head: is there a community standard? Am J Roentgenol 180:1727–1730

    Google Scholar 

  47. Dalla Palma L, Stacul F, Meduri S, Geitung JT (2000) Relationships between radiologists and clinicians: results from three surveys. Clin Radiol 55:602–605

    Google Scholar 

  48. Calman K, Hine D (1995) A policy framework for commissioning cancer services. A report by the expert advisory group on cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales. Department of Health, London, http://www.dh.gov.uk

    Google Scholar 

  49. Chandy J, Goodfellow T, Vohrah A (2000) Clinical governance in action: radiology. Hosp Med 61:326–329

    Google Scholar 

  50. Forman HP (2004) Is radiology moving into the crosshairs? Am J Roentgenol 182:A9

    Google Scholar 

  51. Oestmann JW, Green R, Kushner DC, Bourgouin PM, Linetsky L, Llewellyn HJ (1988) Lung lesions: correlation between viewing time and detection. Radiology 166:451–453

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bechtold RE, Chen MYM, Ott DJ, Zagoria RJ, Scharling ES, Wolfman NT, Vining DJ (1997) Interpretation of abdominal CT: analysis of errors and their causes. J Comput Assist Tomogr 21:681–685

    Google Scholar 

  53. Muchantef K, Forman HP (2004) Professional resource cost of body CT examinations: analysis of interpretation costs in different patient populations. J Am Coll Radiol 1:652–658. DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2004.04.003

    Google Scholar 

  54. Edwards AJ, Ricketts C, Dubbins PA, Roobottom CA, Wells IP (2003) The effect of reporting speed on plain film reporting errors. Clin Radiol 58:971–979. DOI 10.1016/S0009-9260(03)00289-7

    Google Scholar 

  55. Board of the Faculty of Clinical Radiology, The Royal College of Radiologists (1999) Workload and manpower in clinical radiology. The Royal College of Radiologists, London, BFCR (99)5

    Google Scholar 

  56. Berlin L (2000) Liability of interpreting too many radiographs. Am J Roentgenol 175:17–22

    Google Scholar 

  57. Grantcharov TP, Bardram L, Funch-Jensen P, Rosenberg J (2001) Laparoscopic performance after one night on call in a surgical department: prospective study. BMJ 323:1222–1223

    Google Scholar 

  58. http://www.gmc-uk.org/revalidation. General Medical Council, London

  59. http://www.theabr.org/MOC_overview.htm. The American Board of Radiology, Tucson, AZ

  60. http://www.npsa.nhs.uk. National Patient Safety Agency, London

  61. Sheldon T (2004) Netherlands plans system for reporting errors. BMJ 329:68

    Google Scholar 

  62. Gunderman RB, Nyce JM (2002) The tyranny of accuracy in radiologic education. Radiology 222:297–300

    Google Scholar 

  63. Lens P, van der Wal G (1997) Malfunctioning of specialists in Dutch hospitals. In: Lens P, van der Wal G (eds) Problem doctors, a conspiracy of silence. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 191–199

    Google Scholar 

  64. Macdonald E (2002) One pilot son, one medical son. BMJ 324:1105

    Google Scholar 

  65. Edwards N, Kornacki MJ, Silversin J (2002) Unhappy doctors: what are the causes and what can be done? BMJ 324:835–838

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kennedy I (2001) The report of the public inquiry into children’s heart surgery and the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995: learning from Bristol. Stationery Office, London, pp 325–332, 444–445

  67. Secretary of State for Health (2002) Learning from Bristol. In: The Department of Health’s response to the report of the public inquiry into children’s heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, 1984–1995. Department of Health, London, pp 100–102

    Google Scholar 

  68. Hoile R, Ingram S (2002) Functioning as a team? In: The 2002 report of the national confidential enquiry into perioperative deaths. NCEPOD, London, pp 12–14

    Google Scholar 

  69. Faculty of Clinical Radiology, The Royal College of Radiologists (2004) Individual responsibilities—a guide to good medical practice for clinical radiologists. The Royal College of Radiologists, London, BFCR (04)2, pp 11

    Google Scholar 

  70. Belbin RM (1993) Emergence of a team role language. In: Team roles at work, 1st edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 19–31

    Google Scholar 

  71. Esmail A (2004) The prejudices of good people. BMJ 328:1448–1449

    Google Scholar 

  72. Department of Health, London (1999) The current approach to poor clinical performance in the NHS in: supporting doctors, protecting patients. Department of Health, London, pp 13–39

    Google Scholar 

  73. Gunderman R, Chan S (2003) Knowledge sharing in radiology. Radiology 229:314–317. DOI 10.1148/radiol.2292030030

    Google Scholar 

  74. Halsted MJ (2004) Rewarding authors in a digital era: assigning academic credit for contributions to digital articles, web sites, teaching files and lectures. Am J Roentgenol 182:585–586

    Google Scholar 

  75. von Kummer (1998) Effect of training in reading CT scans on patient selection for ECASS II. Neurology 51(Suppl 3):S50–S52

    Google Scholar 

  76. Bredella MA, Feldstein VA, Filly RA, Goldstein RB, Callen PW, Genant HK (2000) Measurement of endometrial thickness at US in multicenter drug trials. Value of central quality assurance reading. Radiology 217:516–520

    Google Scholar 

  77. Espinosa JA, Nolan TW (2000) Reducing errors made by emergency physicians in interpreting radiographs. Longitudinal study. BMJ 320:737–740

    Google Scholar 

  78. Buchanan GN, Halligan S, Taylor S, Williams A, Cohen R, Bartram C (2004) MRI of fistula in ano: inter and intra observer agreement and effects of directed education. Am J Roentgenol 183:135–140

    Google Scholar 

  79. Halligan S (2002) Subspecialist radiology. Clin Radiol 57:982–983. DOI 10.1053/crad.2002.1074

    Google Scholar 

  80. Mellado JM, Perez del Palomar L, Camins A, Salvado E, Ramos A, Sauri A (2004) MR imaging of spinal infection: atypical features, interpretative pitfalls and potential mimickers. Eur Radiol 14:1980–1989. DOI 10.1007/s00330-004-2310-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Moulding FJ, Roach SC, Carrington BM (2004) Unusual sites of lymph node metastases and pitfalls in their detection. Clin Radiol 59:558–572. DOI 10.1016/j.crad.2003.12.003

    Google Scholar 

  82. Gangi S, Fletcher JG, Nathan MA, Christensen JA, Harmsen WS, Crownhart BS, Chari ST (2004) Time interval between abnormalities seen on CT and the clinical diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: retrospective review of CT scans obtained before diagnosis. Am J Roentgenol 182:897–903

    Google Scholar 

  83. Berlin L (1994) Reporting the “missed” radiologic diagnosis: medicolegal and ethical considerations. Radiology 192:183–187

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New Cross Hospital, Wednesfield Road, Wolverhampton, WV10 0QP, UK

    Richard FitzGerald

Authors
  1. Richard FitzGerald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard FitzGerald.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

FitzGerald, R. Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking. Eur Radiol 15, 1760–1767 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2662-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2662-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation