Abstract
Objective
Secondary interpretations of imaging studies performed at another facility are increasingly
common in radiology, particularly emergency radiology. While data suggests there are
often discrepancies found between original and secondary reports, the benefit from
the clinician perspective is unclear.
Methods and materials
An anonymous electronic survey on secondary interpretations was circulated to 58 attending
adult emergency physicians and trauma surgeons at a Level I trauma center from March
2018 to April 2018. Chi-squared testing was used for statistical analysis.
Results
80.8% of respondents requested secondary interpretations either “always” or “most
of the time.” Over half of the respondents cited trust in the house radiologist interpretation
as the primary reason for secondary interpretation requests. 92.3% and 84.6% of respondents
felt that the ability to obtain second interpretations improves patient care and facilitates
disposition, respectively. 88.5% of respondents reported reduced imaging utilization
due to secondary reads. When presented with conflicting interpretations, all trauma
surgeons would rely on the in-house interpretation, whereas 50% of the emergency physicians
would pursue further imaging (p < 0.05). 96.2% of respondents were uncertain about
insurance coverage of secondary interpretations, but 73.1% would continue to order
them, regardless.
Conclusion
Secondary reads were heavily utilized, felt to influence patient care, reduced additional
imaging and aided in disposition, suggesting clinical benefit. When presented with
conflicting reports, trauma surgeons would rely on the in-house interpretation whereas
emergency physicians more often opted to pursue additional imaging. Most respondents
would still request secondary interpretations despite being unaware of insurance coverage
for these interpretations.
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 accessOne-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 ImagingAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- To err is human: building a safer health system.The National Academies Press, Washington, DC2000
- Surgical pathology—second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations: what's out there? Error or diagnostic variation?.Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006; 130: 620-625
- Second opinion reviews for cancer diagnoses in anatomic pathology: a comprehensive cancer center's experience.Am J Clin Pathol. 2016; 146: 1
- Institutional pathology consultation.Am J Surg Pathol. 2004; 28: 399-402
- Secondary interpretation of CT examinations: frequency and payment in the Medicare fee-for-service population.J Am Coll Radiol. 2016; 13: 1096-1101
- Volume and coverage of secondary imaging interpretation under Medicare, 2003 to 2016.J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15: 1394-1400
- Second opinion readings on outside studies: should we bother?.Appl Radiol. 2012; 41
- Discrepancy rates and clinical impact of imaging secondary interpretations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15: 1222-1231
- Radiologist-initiated double reading of abdominal CT: retrospective analysis of the clinical importance of changes to radiology reports.BMJ Qual Saf. 2016; 25: 595-603
- Second-opinion subspecialty consultations in musculoskeletal radiology.Am J Roentgenol. 2016; 206: 1217-1221
- Second-opinion consultations in neuroradiology.Radiology. 2010; 255: 135-141
- Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology, a systematic review.Insights Imaging. 2018; 9: 287-301
- Effectiveness of second-opinion radiology consultations to reassess the cervical spine CT scans: a study on trauma patients referred to a tertiary-care hospital.Diagn Interv Radiol (Ankara, Turkey). 2015; 21: 423-427
Hall, S, Billing and coding overreads, outside reads and second interpretations — what radiologists need to know, Radiol Today, Vol. 19, No. 10, p.8, https://www.radiologytoday.net/archive/rt1018p8.shtml (Accessed 10/4/19).
- Double reading of outsourced CT/MR radiology reports: retrospective analysis.J Patient Saf. 2018; (Aug. 13. published online ahead of print)
- Curbside consults: practices, pitfalls and legal issues.Clin Imaging. 2019; 57: 83-86 at 85
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: June 09, 2020
Accepted:
May 29,
2020
Received in revised form:
May 13,
2020
Received:
October 22,
2019
Footnotes
☆Both Drs. Mezrich and Danda substantially contributed to the conception and design of the underlying study, were both substantially involved in preparing and submitting materials for obtaining IRB waiver, were both substantially involved in the data collection and analysis, were both substantially involved in the writing and revision/editing of the abstract and manuscript, have approved this final version of the manuscript, and agree to be accountable for the manuscripts contents.
☆The authors declare that they had full access to all of the data in this study and the authors take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
