E-resources
-
Chong, Suzanne; Hanna, Tarek; Lamoureux, Christine; Ma, Tianwen; Weber, Scott; Johnson, Jamlik-Omari; Friedberg, Eric; Pyatt, , Jr, Robert S; Everett, Catherine J; Johnson, Timothy D
American journal of roentgenology (1976), 04/2022, Volume: 218, Issue: 4Journal Article
In community settings, radiologists commonly function as multispecialty radiologists, interpreting examinations outside of their area of fellowship training. The purpose of this article was to compare discrepancy rates for preliminary interpretations of acute community-setting examinations that are concordant versus discordant with interpreting radiologists' area of fellowship training. This retrospective study used the databank of a U.S. teleradiology company that provides preliminary interpretations for client community hospitals. The analysis included 5,883,980 acute examinations performed from 2012 to 2016 that were preliminarily interpreted by 269 teleradiologists with a fellowship of neuroradiology, abdominal radiology, or musculoskeletal radiology. When providing final interpretations, client on-site radiologists voluntarily submitted quality assurance (QA) requests if preliminary and final interpretations were discrepant; the teleradiology company's QA committee categorized discrepancies as major ( = 8444) or minor ( = 17,208). Associations among examination type (common vs advanced), relationship between examination subspecialty and the teleradiologist's fellowship (concordant vs discordant), and major and minor discrepancies were assessed using three-way conditional analyses with generalized estimating equations. For examinations with a concordant subspecialty, the major discrepancy rate was lower for common than for advanced examinations (0.13% vs 0.26%; relative risk RR, 0.50, 95% CI, 0.42-0.60; < .001). For examinations with a discordant subspecialty, the major discrepancy rate was lower for common than advanced examinations (0.14% vs 0.18%; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.90; < .001). For common examinations, the major discrepancy rate was not different between examinations with concordant versus discordant subspecialty (0.13% vs 0.14%; RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.01; = .07). For advanced examinations, the major discrepancy rate was higher for examinations with concordant versus discordant subspecialty (0.26% vs 0.18%; RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.79; < .001). The minor discrepancy rate was higher among advanced examinations for those with concordant versus discordant subspecialty (0.34% vs 0.29%; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.36; = .04), but not different for other comparisons ( > .05). Major and minor discrepancy rates were not higher for acute community-setting examinations outside of interpreting radiologists' fellowship training. Discrepancy rates increased for advanced examinations. The findings support multispecialty radiologist practice in acute community settings. Efforts to match examination and interpreting radiologist sub-specialty may not reduce diagnostic discrepancies.
![loading ... loading ...](themes/default/img/ajax-loading.gif)
Shelf entry
Permalink
- URL:
Impact factor
Access to the JCR database is permitted only to users from Slovenia. Your current IP address is not on the list of IP addresses with access permission, and authentication with the relevant AAI accout is required.
Year | Impact factor | Edition | Category | Classification | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP |
Select the library membership card:
If the library membership card is not in the list,
add a new one.
DRS, in which the journal is indexed
Database name | Field | Year |
---|
Links to authors' personal bibliographies | Links to information on researchers in the SICRIS system |
---|
Source: Personal bibliographies
and: SICRIS
The material is available in full text. If you wish to order the material anyway, click the Continue button.