Correlation among on-call resident study volume, discrepancy rate, and turnaround time.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES With continued increase in imaging utilization and remote access image viewing technology, many academic radiology departments are presented with the suggestion to supplement on-call resident preliminary reports with an outsourced attending interpretation. This idea is often brought to administrative attention because of the subjective impression that outsourced studies will benefit from significantly faster interpretation times and lower discrepancy rates, especially when study volume is high. We attempt to retrospectively analyze on-call resident studies at a busy Trauma I university hospital and establish whether a statistical correlation exists among study volume, discrepancy rate, and turnaround time. MATERIALS AND METHODS On-call computed tomography and ultrasound studies between January 2008 and June 2008 were retrospectively reviewed by blinded staff radiologists for discrepancies between preliminary and final reports. A correlation analysis between discrepancy rate and study volume per shift was performed. In addition, correlation analysis between volume per shift and interpretation time was also performed. RESULTS A total of 1133 studies were reviewed. The major discrepancy rate is 1.85% with average turnaround time of 28.5 minutes. The correlation coefficient between major discrepancy rate and study volume is 0.35. The correlation coefficient between interpretation time and study volume is 0.29. CONCLUSION Our large retrospective review of preliminary reports from different residents reveals no significant correlation among discrepancy rate, turnaround time, and study volume. The overall discrepancy rate is similar to that reported by other studies. Other institutions can perform this study to analyze whether their volume and resident performance warrants supplemental assistance before depriving residents of the educational benefits the independent on-call experience affords.

[1]  E. Carney,et al.  Preliminary interpretations of after-hours CT and sonography by radiology residents versus final interpretations by body imaging radiologists at a level 1 trauma center. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  K. Mccarroll,et al.  Resident interpretation of emergency computed tomographic scans. , 1991, Investigative radiology.

[3]  J. Jaeger,et al.  Preliminary radiology resident interpretations versus final attending radiologist interpretations and the impact on patient care in a community hospital. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  G. Velmahos,et al.  Around-the-dock Attending Radiology Coverage is Essential to Avoid Mistakes in the Care of Trauma Patients , 2001, The American surgeon.

[5]  S. Li,et al.  Discrepancies in interpretation of ED body computed tomographic scans by radiology residents. , 2007, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[6]  R A Novelline,et al.  Head trauma: CT scan interpretation by radiology residents versus staff radiologists. , 1998, Radiology.

[7]  J. S. Desmond,et al.  Clinical consequences of misinterpretations of neuroradiologic CT scans by on-call radiology residents. , 2000, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[8]  R. Bilow,et al.  Resident vs. attending interpretation of on-call studies: clinical impact , 2001, Emergency Radiology.

[9]  A. Lev-Toaff,et al.  Effects of training and experience in interpretation of emergency body CT scans. , 1996, Radiology.

[10]  W. Strub,et al.  Overnight resident preliminary interpretations on CT Examinations: should the process continue? , 2006, Emergency Radiology.