Analysis of revised imaging reports in diagnostic radiology

An example from a medical center in Taiwan

Po Yen Chang, Ming Chih Hsieh, Ying Jung La, Wing P. Chan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

To analyze revised imaging reports in diagnostic radiology from a medical center in Taiwan, we prospectively collected revised imaging reports from one institution between September 2004 and June 2006. A total of 297 revised reports was recruited and divided into five types: missed diagnosis, transcription errors, requested by clinicians, obtained additional information, and suboptimal films. Results showed that the rate of revised reports was 0.06%. Of these 297, plain x-rays had 138 reports, CT/MRI had 119, and other special procedure examinations had 40. The most frequent reason for revision of plain x-rays was missed diagnosis (38.4%), whereas obtained additional information was the main reason for revision of CT/MRI reports (41.2%). Transcription errors accounted for most of the revision in other special procedure examinations (37.5%). In this study, the rate of revised reports was correlated well with previous literature (0.07%). Radiologists can learn from such feedback and revision to enhance quality of our imaging reports.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)23-29
Number of pages7
JournalChinese Journal of Radiology
Volume33
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2008

Fingerprint

Taiwan
Radiology
X-Rays
Radiologists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Analysis of revised imaging reports in diagnostic radiology : An example from a medical center in Taiwan. / Chang, Po Yen; Hsieh, Ming Chih; La, Ying Jung; Chan, Wing P.

In: Chinese Journal of Radiology, Vol. 33, No. 1, 03.2008, p. 23-29.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e65f3fe140114679a05bc1969b21ea83,
title = "Analysis of revised imaging reports in diagnostic radiology: An example from a medical center in Taiwan",
abstract = "To analyze revised imaging reports in diagnostic radiology from a medical center in Taiwan, we prospectively collected revised imaging reports from one institution between September 2004 and June 2006. A total of 297 revised reports was recruited and divided into five types: missed diagnosis, transcription errors, requested by clinicians, obtained additional information, and suboptimal films. Results showed that the rate of revised reports was 0.06{\%}. Of these 297, plain x-rays had 138 reports, CT/MRI had 119, and other special procedure examinations had 40. The most frequent reason for revision of plain x-rays was missed diagnosis (38.4{\%}), whereas obtained additional information was the main reason for revision of CT/MRI reports (41.2{\%}). Transcription errors accounted for most of the revision in other special procedure examinations (37.5{\%}). In this study, the rate of revised reports was correlated well with previous literature (0.07{\%}). Radiologists can learn from such feedback and revision to enhance quality of our imaging reports.",
author = "Chang, {Po Yen} and Hsieh, {Ming Chih} and La, {Ying Jung} and Chan, {Wing P.}",
year = "2008",
month = "3",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "23--29",
journal = "Chinese Journal of Radiology",
issn = "1018-8940",
publisher = "中華民國放射線醫學會",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Analysis of revised imaging reports in diagnostic radiology

T2 - An example from a medical center in Taiwan

AU - Chang, Po Yen

AU - Hsieh, Ming Chih

AU - La, Ying Jung

AU - Chan, Wing P.

PY - 2008/3

Y1 - 2008/3

N2 - To analyze revised imaging reports in diagnostic radiology from a medical center in Taiwan, we prospectively collected revised imaging reports from one institution between September 2004 and June 2006. A total of 297 revised reports was recruited and divided into five types: missed diagnosis, transcription errors, requested by clinicians, obtained additional information, and suboptimal films. Results showed that the rate of revised reports was 0.06%. Of these 297, plain x-rays had 138 reports, CT/MRI had 119, and other special procedure examinations had 40. The most frequent reason for revision of plain x-rays was missed diagnosis (38.4%), whereas obtained additional information was the main reason for revision of CT/MRI reports (41.2%). Transcription errors accounted for most of the revision in other special procedure examinations (37.5%). In this study, the rate of revised reports was correlated well with previous literature (0.07%). Radiologists can learn from such feedback and revision to enhance quality of our imaging reports.

AB - To analyze revised imaging reports in diagnostic radiology from a medical center in Taiwan, we prospectively collected revised imaging reports from one institution between September 2004 and June 2006. A total of 297 revised reports was recruited and divided into five types: missed diagnosis, transcription errors, requested by clinicians, obtained additional information, and suboptimal films. Results showed that the rate of revised reports was 0.06%. Of these 297, plain x-rays had 138 reports, CT/MRI had 119, and other special procedure examinations had 40. The most frequent reason for revision of plain x-rays was missed diagnosis (38.4%), whereas obtained additional information was the main reason for revision of CT/MRI reports (41.2%). Transcription errors accounted for most of the revision in other special procedure examinations (37.5%). In this study, the rate of revised reports was correlated well with previous literature (0.07%). Radiologists can learn from such feedback and revision to enhance quality of our imaging reports.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=44849085481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=44849085481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 23

EP - 29

JO - Chinese Journal of Radiology

JF - Chinese Journal of Radiology

SN - 1018-8940

IS - 1

ER -