Advertisement

Curbside radiology consults: how does the time allotted for review, level of training, and subspecialization affect interpretation accuracy?

  • Martin Jordanov
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Avenue South, MCN CCC-1121, Nashville, TN 37232–2675. Tel.: +1 615 322 3765; fax: +1 615 322 3764.
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Avenue South, MCN CCC-1121, Nashville, TN 37232-2675
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jana Bregman
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Avenue South, MCN CCC-1121, Nashville, TN 37232-2675
    Search for articles by this author
  • Kathleen Montgomery
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Avenue South, MCN CCC-1121, Nashville, TN 37232-2675
    Search for articles by this author
  • Mark Heidel
    Affiliations
    Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Avenue South, MCN CCC-1121, Nashville, TN 37232-2675
    Search for articles by this author

      Abstract

      The interpretation accuracy of resident and attending radiologists was assessed based on time allotted for study review, level of training, and subspecialization. Twelve cases were presented in a time-constrained and a time-unconstrained fashion to eight residents and six attendings. Overall, timed and untimed diagnostic accuracy was similar for all groups tested. Attendings sometimes performed worse than residents and in-field attendings when reviewing out-of-field studies. Residents often had greater specialty-specific accuracy than out-of-field attendings. Residents are capable of providing accurate "curbside" consultations to referring clinicians even under time-constrained conditions. Highly subspecialized attending radiologists should be cognizant of their out-of-field limitations.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Cooper VF
        • Goodhartz LA
        • Nemcek AA
        • Ryu RK
        Radiology Resident Interpretations of On-call Imaging Studies.
        Acad Radiol. 2008; 15: 1198-1204
        • Kung JW
        • Melenevsky Y
        • Hochman MG
        • Didolkar MM
        • Yablon CM
        • Eisenberg RL
        • Wu JS
        On-Call Musculoskeletal Radiographs: Discrepancy Rates Between Radiology Residents and Musculoskeletal Radiologists.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 200: 856-859
        • Ruchman RB
        • Jaeger J
        • Wiggins EF
        • Seinfeld S
        • Thakral V
        • Bolla S
        • et al.
        Preliminary Radiology Resident Interpretations Versus Final Attending Radiologist Interpretations and the Impact on Patient Care in a Community Hospital.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189: 523-526
        • Filippi CG
        • Meyer RE
        • Cauley K
        • Nickerson JP
        • Burbank HN
        • Johnson JM
        • et al.
        The misinterpretation rates of radiology residents on emergent neuroradiology magnetic resonance (MR) angiogram studies: correlation with level of residency training.
        Emerg Radiol. 2009; 17: 45-50
        • Branstetter BF
        • Morgan MB
        • Nesbit CE
        • Phillips JA
        • Lionetti DM
        • Chang PJ
        • et al.
        Preliminary Reports in the Emergency Department: Is a Subspecialist Radiologist More Accurate Than a Radiology Resident?.
        Acad Radiol. 2007; 14: 201-206
        • Gollub MJ
        • Panicek DM
        • Bach AM
        • Penalver A
        • Castellino RA
        Clinical importance of reinterpretation of body CT scans obtained elsewhere in patients referred for care at a tertiary cancer center.
        Radiology. 1999; 210: 109-112
        • Wakeley CJ
        • Jones AM
        • Kabala JE
        • Prince D
        • Goddard PR
        Audit of the value of double reading magnetic resonance imaging films.
        Br J Radiol. 1995; 68: 358-360
        • Christensen EE
        • Murry RC
        • Holland K
        • Reynolds J
        • Landay MJ
        • Moore JG
        The Effect Search Time on Perception.
        Radiology. 1981; 138: 361-365
        • Nodine CF
        • Mello-Thoms C
        • Kundel HL
        • Weinstein SP
        Time Course of Perception and Decision Making During Mammographic Interpretation.
        AJR. 2002; 179: 917-923
        • Kundel HL
        History of Research in Medical Image Perception.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2006; 3: 402-408
        • Kundel HL
        Reader Error, object recognition, and visual search.
        Proc SPIE. 2004; 5372: 1-11
        • Kundel HL
        • Nodine CF
        Interpreting Chest Radiographs Without Visual Search.
        Radiology. 1975; 116: 527-532
        • Loy CT
        • Irwig L
        Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical information: a systematic review.
        JAMA. 2004; 292: 1602-1609
        • Hawkins CM
        • Anton CG
        • Bankes WM
        • Leach AD
        • Zeno MJ
        • Pryor RM
        • et al.
        Improving the availability of clinical history accompanying radiographic examinations in a large pediatric radiology department.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 202: 790-796