Abstract
Background and Aims: Radiologists can learn from referring clinicians’ feedback to improve quality
and accuracy of radiology reports. The present report aims to understand revised radiology reports of
a medical center in Taiwan, and compare the results in 2011-2012 (Period-1) vs. 2013-2014 (Period-2).
Methods: A total of 318 revised reports in Period-1 (vs. 235, Period-2) were analyzed and divided into
five types: initial misdiagnosis, transcription errors, requested by clinicians, obtained additional
information, and defective films. All initial radiology reports were included and trainees reports were
excluded in this audit.
Results: The rate of revised reports was 0.05% in Period-1 (vs. 0.03%, Period-2). Of these, plain Xrays had 64 films (vs. 34, Period-2), CT had 105 films (vs. 100, Period-2), MRI had 98 films (vs. 70,
Period-2), and other special procedure examinations had 51 films (vs. 31, Period-2). The most frequent
reason for revision of plain X-rays reports was initial misdiagnosis 48.4% (vs. 50%, Period-2). Initial
misdiagnosis was the main reason for revision of CT reports in Period-1 (35.2%) and requested by
clinicians was the main reason for revision of CT reports in Period-2 (42%). Requested by clinicians was
the main reason for revision of MRI reports 31.6% (vs. 30%, Period-2). Requested by clinicians was the
main reason for revision of special procedure examinations in Period-1 (25.5%) and transcription errors
was the main reason in Period-2 (32.3%).
Conclusion: The rates of revised reports were slightly decreased in two audited periods. The diagnostic
discrepancies were various among different imaging modalities. This audit has allowed and stimulated
the medical team for fully awareness of the interpretation and reporting process, thereby improving the
quality of our work.
and accuracy of radiology reports. The present report aims to understand revised radiology reports of
a medical center in Taiwan, and compare the results in 2011-2012 (Period-1) vs. 2013-2014 (Period-2).
Methods: A total of 318 revised reports in Period-1 (vs. 235, Period-2) were analyzed and divided into
five types: initial misdiagnosis, transcription errors, requested by clinicians, obtained additional
information, and defective films. All initial radiology reports were included and trainees reports were
excluded in this audit.
Results: The rate of revised reports was 0.05% in Period-1 (vs. 0.03%, Period-2). Of these, plain Xrays had 64 films (vs. 34, Period-2), CT had 105 films (vs. 100, Period-2), MRI had 98 films (vs. 70,
Period-2), and other special procedure examinations had 51 films (vs. 31, Period-2). The most frequent
reason for revision of plain X-rays reports was initial misdiagnosis 48.4% (vs. 50%, Period-2). Initial
misdiagnosis was the main reason for revision of CT reports in Period-1 (35.2%) and requested by
clinicians was the main reason for revision of CT reports in Period-2 (42%). Requested by clinicians was
the main reason for revision of MRI reports 31.6% (vs. 30%, Period-2). Requested by clinicians was the
main reason for revision of special procedure examinations in Period-1 (25.5%) and transcription errors
was the main reason in Period-2 (32.3%).
Conclusion: The rates of revised reports were slightly decreased in two audited periods. The diagnostic
discrepancies were various among different imaging modalities. This audit has allowed and stimulated
the medical team for fully awareness of the interpretation and reporting process, thereby improving the
quality of our work.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication status | Published - Nov 2015 |
| Event | Asia-Pacific Forum on Quality and Safety of Medical Imaging 2015 - Taipei, Taiwan Duration: Nov 14 2014 → Nov 15 2014 http://www.nrst.tw/news/news_info.asp?id=553 |
Conference
| Conference | Asia-Pacific Forum on Quality and Safety of Medical Imaging 2015 |
|---|---|
| Abbreviated title | APQS 2015 |
| Country | Taiwan |
| City | Taipei |
| Period | 11/14/14 → 11/15/14 |
| Internet address |