Radiological misinterpretations by emergency physicians in discharged minor trauma patients

Su Jin Kim, Sung Woo Lee, Yun Sik Hong, Do Hyoun Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Unerring radiological interpretation is essential in discharged minor trauma patients without follow-up visits based on the rapid decision of emergency physicians (EPs). Misinterpretation may raise issues concerning patient care, reimbursement and lawsuits. The authors investigated the discrepancies and associated factors in radiological interpretation for discharged trauma patients between EPs and radiologists. Methods: The authors included trauma patients who visited the emergency department, from 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010, and searched for cases showing discrepancy using the 'modified quality assurance model for radiological interpretation'. The overall/clinically significant discrepancy (CSD)/clinically insignificant discrepancy (CinSD) rates were calculated. The authors also looked at the relationship between discrepancies and several factors including age and time of visit. Results: 10 243 cases were related to minor trauma, in which the radiological images were interpreted as normal by EPs. The overall discrepancy, the CSD and CinSD rates were 0.77% (n=79), 0.47% (n=48) and 0.3% (n=31), respectively. No discrepancy was shown to be related to the day or time of visit. The discrepancy rate turned out to be relatively higher with increasing age, and for injuries of the extremities. No associated factors were found between the CSD and CinSD groups. Conclusions: Despite a relatively low CSD rate, careful interpretation is recommended considering age and body areas imaged. A modified model would be needed as a supportive tool for training and improving the quality of care. A further development of the modified system for efficient use of resources will be needed to focus on quality improvement and education in each hospital.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)635-639
Number of pages5
JournalEmergency Medicine Journal
Volume29
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012 Aug 1

Fingerprint

Emergencies
Physicians
Wounds and Injuries
Quality of Health Care
Age Factors
Quality Improvement
Hospital Emergency Service
Patient Care
Extremities
Education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Radiological misinterpretations by emergency physicians in discharged minor trauma patients. / Kim, Su Jin; Lee, Sung Woo; Hong, Yun Sik; Kim, Do Hyoun.

In: Emergency Medicine Journal, Vol. 29, No. 8, 01.08.2012, p. 635-639.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5f375837a49e4a5f8973d38f55379cc9,
title = "Radiological misinterpretations by emergency physicians in discharged minor trauma patients",
abstract = "Introduction: Unerring radiological interpretation is essential in discharged minor trauma patients without follow-up visits based on the rapid decision of emergency physicians (EPs). Misinterpretation may raise issues concerning patient care, reimbursement and lawsuits. The authors investigated the discrepancies and associated factors in radiological interpretation for discharged trauma patients between EPs and radiologists. Methods: The authors included trauma patients who visited the emergency department, from 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010, and searched for cases showing discrepancy using the 'modified quality assurance model for radiological interpretation'. The overall/clinically significant discrepancy (CSD)/clinically insignificant discrepancy (CinSD) rates were calculated. The authors also looked at the relationship between discrepancies and several factors including age and time of visit. Results: 10 243 cases were related to minor trauma, in which the radiological images were interpreted as normal by EPs. The overall discrepancy, the CSD and CinSD rates were 0.77{\%} (n=79), 0.47{\%} (n=48) and 0.3{\%} (n=31), respectively. No discrepancy was shown to be related to the day or time of visit. The discrepancy rate turned out to be relatively higher with increasing age, and for injuries of the extremities. No associated factors were found between the CSD and CinSD groups. Conclusions: Despite a relatively low CSD rate, careful interpretation is recommended considering age and body areas imaged. A modified model would be needed as a supportive tool for training and improving the quality of care. A further development of the modified system for efficient use of resources will be needed to focus on quality improvement and education in each hospital.",
author = "Kim, {Su Jin} and Lee, {Sung Woo} and Hong, {Yun Sik} and Kim, {Do Hyoun}",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/emj.2011.111385",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "635--639",
journal = "Emergency Medicine Journal",
issn = "1472-0205",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Radiological misinterpretations by emergency physicians in discharged minor trauma patients

AU - Kim, Su Jin

AU - Lee, Sung Woo

AU - Hong, Yun Sik

AU - Kim, Do Hyoun

PY - 2012/8/1

Y1 - 2012/8/1

N2 - Introduction: Unerring radiological interpretation is essential in discharged minor trauma patients without follow-up visits based on the rapid decision of emergency physicians (EPs). Misinterpretation may raise issues concerning patient care, reimbursement and lawsuits. The authors investigated the discrepancies and associated factors in radiological interpretation for discharged trauma patients between EPs and radiologists. Methods: The authors included trauma patients who visited the emergency department, from 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010, and searched for cases showing discrepancy using the 'modified quality assurance model for radiological interpretation'. The overall/clinically significant discrepancy (CSD)/clinically insignificant discrepancy (CinSD) rates were calculated. The authors also looked at the relationship between discrepancies and several factors including age and time of visit. Results: 10 243 cases were related to minor trauma, in which the radiological images were interpreted as normal by EPs. The overall discrepancy, the CSD and CinSD rates were 0.77% (n=79), 0.47% (n=48) and 0.3% (n=31), respectively. No discrepancy was shown to be related to the day or time of visit. The discrepancy rate turned out to be relatively higher with increasing age, and for injuries of the extremities. No associated factors were found between the CSD and CinSD groups. Conclusions: Despite a relatively low CSD rate, careful interpretation is recommended considering age and body areas imaged. A modified model would be needed as a supportive tool for training and improving the quality of care. A further development of the modified system for efficient use of resources will be needed to focus on quality improvement and education in each hospital.

AB - Introduction: Unerring radiological interpretation is essential in discharged minor trauma patients without follow-up visits based on the rapid decision of emergency physicians (EPs). Misinterpretation may raise issues concerning patient care, reimbursement and lawsuits. The authors investigated the discrepancies and associated factors in radiological interpretation for discharged trauma patients between EPs and radiologists. Methods: The authors included trauma patients who visited the emergency department, from 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010, and searched for cases showing discrepancy using the 'modified quality assurance model for radiological interpretation'. The overall/clinically significant discrepancy (CSD)/clinically insignificant discrepancy (CinSD) rates were calculated. The authors also looked at the relationship between discrepancies and several factors including age and time of visit. Results: 10 243 cases were related to minor trauma, in which the radiological images were interpreted as normal by EPs. The overall discrepancy, the CSD and CinSD rates were 0.77% (n=79), 0.47% (n=48) and 0.3% (n=31), respectively. No discrepancy was shown to be related to the day or time of visit. The discrepancy rate turned out to be relatively higher with increasing age, and for injuries of the extremities. No associated factors were found between the CSD and CinSD groups. Conclusions: Despite a relatively low CSD rate, careful interpretation is recommended considering age and body areas imaged. A modified model would be needed as a supportive tool for training and improving the quality of care. A further development of the modified system for efficient use of resources will be needed to focus on quality improvement and education in each hospital.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863986356&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863986356&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/emj.2011.111385

DO - 10.1136/emj.2011.111385

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 635

EP - 639

JO - Emergency Medicine Journal

JF - Emergency Medicine Journal

SN - 1472-0205

IS - 8

ER -