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

被引:70
作者
FitzGerald, R [1 ]
机构
[1] New Cross Hosp, Wolverhampton WV10 0QP, W Midlands, England
关键词
diagnostic radiology; observer performance; quality assurance; radiology reporting systems; radiological error;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-005-2662-8
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1760 / 1767
页数:8
相关论文
共 82 条
[1]   Special interest radiology improves the perceived preoperative stage of gastric cancer [J].
Barry, JD ;
Edwards, P ;
Lewis, WG ;
Dhariwal, D ;
Thomas, GV .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2002, 57 (11) :984-988
[2]   Interpretation of abdominal CT: Analysis of errors and their causes [J].
Bechtold, RE ;
Chen, MYM ;
Ott, DJ ;
Zagoria, RJ ;
Scharling, ES ;
Wolfman, NT ;
Vining, DJ .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 1997, 21 (05) :681-685
[3]  
BELBIN RM, 1993, TEAM ROLES WORK, P19
[4]   Liability of interpreting too many radiographs [J].
Berlin, L .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2000, 175 (01) :17-22
[5]   Malpractice issues in radiology - Pitfalls of the vague radiology report [J].
Berlin, L .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2000, 174 (06) :1511-1518
[6]   REPORTING THE MISSED RADIOLOGIC-DIAGNOSIS - MEDICOLEGAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS [J].
BERLIN, L .
RADIOLOGY, 1994, 192 (01) :183-187
[7]  
Borgstede James P, 2004, J Am Coll Radiol, V1, P59, DOI 10.1016/S1546-1440(03)00002-4
[8]   Towards complete and,accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative [J].
Bossuyt, PM ;
Reitsma, JB ;
Bruns, DE ;
Gatsonis, CA ;
Glasziou, PP ;
Irwig, LM ;
Lijmer, JG ;
Moher, D ;
Rennie, D ;
de Vet, HCE .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2003, 326 (7379) :41-44
[9]  
Bossuyt PM, 2003, CLIN RADIOL, V58, P575, DOI 10.1016/S0009-9260(03)00258-7
[10]   Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative [J].
Bossuyt, PM ;
Reitsma, JB ;
Bruns, DE ;
Gatsonis, CA ;
Glasziou, PP ;
Irwig, LM ;
Lijmer, JG ;
Moher, D ;
Rennie, D ;
de Vet, HCW .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2003, 181 (01) :51-56