Frequency of errors in the radiological report of abdominal computed tomography and related factors in three institutions in the city of Medellín third and fourth level
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53903/01212095.372Keywords:
Medical errors, Radiology, Computed tomography, Diagnostic imagingAbstract
Introduction: A radiological report containing valuable information is the ultimate goal of a radiologist’s work. The quality of the report is a fundamental aspect of a radiologist’s professionalism. Understanding the types of errors and their frequency allows for analysis and the development of solutions. Objective: To investigate the frequency of errors in radiological reports in three clinical institutions in Medellín, Colombia. Methodology: Observational cross-sectional analytical study. A sample of 380 abdominal CT scan reports was defined. The reports were evaluated collectively by at least two researchers to determine the presence or absence of each reporting error category. Data collection was done using a Google form. Data unification was performed with Microsoft Excel. Statistical analysis was carried out using the Jamovi tool. Bivariate analysis was done. Results: The mean age of the patients was 50.7 years. 51.3 % of the population were men. 60.8 % of the reports corresponded to clinical studies, and 93.4 % were contrast-enhanced CT scans. A total of 754 errors were found. 299 reports had one or more errors. In 25 % of the cases, there was only one error. The average number of errors per report was 1.98. The most frequent category was lack of indication or conclusion (52.9 %), followed by attenuation language (35.3 %). Conclusion: Reporting errors are common. Disseminating reporting guidelines and classifications of errors are tools to improve the quality and performance of radiology.
Downloads
References
Berlin L. The duty to communicate. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(5):W962-W962. Disponible en: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.10.5528
Del Cura JL. La comunicación en radiología. Rev Colomb Radiol. 2015;26(3):4236-7.
Elizondo Riojas G. La radiología: ¿una especialidad en extinción? Rev Mex Radiol. 1994;48(4):153-6.
Friedman P. Radiologic reporting: structure. Am J Roentgenol. 1983;140(1):171-2. Disponible en: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/ajr.140.1.171
Goldberg-Stein S, Chernyak V. Adding value in radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(9):1292-8. Disponible en: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1546144019306933
Gunderman RB. The true purpose of a radiology report. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(10):1450. Disponible en: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1546144018307129
Heilman RS. What’s wrong with radiology. N Engl J Med. 1982;306(8):477-9.
Ware JB, Jha S, Hoang JK, Baker S, Wruble J. Effective radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(6):838-9. Disponible en: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1546144017301783
Maynard CD. Radiologists: physicians or expert image interpreters? Radiology. 2008;248(2):333-6. Disponible en: http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2482080375
Brady AP, Bello JA, Derchi LE, Fuchsjäger M, Goergen S, Krestin GP, et al. Radiology in the era of value-based healthcare: a multi-society expert statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA. Radiology. 2021;298(3):486-91. Disponible en: http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2020209027
American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. Disponible en: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=74
The Royal College of Radiologists. Standards for the reporting and interpretation of imaging investigations. 2018. Disponible en: https://www.rcr.ac.uk/our-services/all-our-publications/clinical-radiology-publications/standards-for-interpretation-andreporting-of-imaging-investigations-second-edition/
Canadian Association of Radiologists. CAR standard for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. 2010. Disponible en: https://car.ca/wp-content/uploads/Communication-of-Diagnostic-Imaging-Findings.pdf
European Society of Radiology (ESR). Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights Imaging. 2011;2(2):93-6. Disponible en: https://insightsimaging.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/s13244-011-0066-7
Goergen SK, Pool FJ, Turner TJ, Grimm JE, Appleyard MN, Crock C, et al. Evidencebased guideline for the written radiology report: Methods, recommendations and implementation challenges. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013;57(1):1-7. Disponible en: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1754-9485.12014
Hong Kong College of Radiologists. Guide on good medical practice for radiologists [internet]. 2014. Disponible en: https://www.hkcr.org/templates/OS03C00336/case/lop/goodpractice2.pdf
Pool FJ, Siemienowicz ML. New RANZCR clinical radiology written report guidelines. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019;63(1):7-14. Disponible en: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1754-9485.12756
Smith MJ. Error and variation in diagnostic radiology. 1st ed. Springfiel, Illinois, USA: Charles C Thomas Publisher; 1967. 191 p.
González Vásquez CM. Errores en radiología: nueva clasificación. Rev Colomb Radiol. 2016;27(1):4407-16.
Itri JN, Tappouni RR, McEachern RO, Pesch AJ, Patel SH. Fundamentals of diagnostic error in imaging. RadioGraphics. 2018;38(6):1845-65. Disponible en: http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/rg.2018180021
Lee CS, Nagy PG, Weaver SJ, Newman-Toker DE. Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(3):611-7. Disponible en: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.12.10375
Bhatt A, Yang X, Karnik N, Sill A, Kowdley G. Use of computerized tomography in abdominal pain. Am Surg. 2018;84(6):1091-6. Disponible en: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000313481808400671
Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S. Determinación del tamaño de las muestras en los estudios sanitarios: manual práctico. World Health Organization; 1991. 80 p. Disponible en: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/37589
McGurk S, Brauer K, Macfarlane TV, Duncan KA. The effect of voice recognition software on comparative error rates in radiology reports. Br J Radiol. 2008;81(970):767-70. Disponible en: https://academic.oup.com/bjr/article/81/970/767-770/7444113
Berlin L. Pitfalls of the vague radiology report. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174(6):1511-8. Disponible en: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/ajr.174.6.1741511
Makhnevich A, Sinvani L, Cohen SL, Feldhamer KH, Zhang M, Lesser ML, et al. The Clinical utility of chest radiography for identifying pneumonia: accounting for diagnostic uncertainty in radiology reports. Am J Roentgenol. 2019;213(6):1207-12. Disponible en: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.19.21521
Khorasani R, Bates DW, Teeger S, Rothschild JM, Adams DF, Seltzer SE. Is terminology used effectively to convey diagnostic certainty in radiology reports? Acad Radiol. 2003;10(6):685-8. Disponible en: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1076633203800892
Rogers LF. Information transfer: Radiology reports. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(3):573. https://org/doi/10.2214/ajr.176.3.1760573
Enfield CD. The scope of the roentgenologist’s report. JAMA J Am Med Assoc.1923;80(14):999. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1923.02640410029013
Brady AP. Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? Insights Imaging. 2017;8(1):171-82. Disponible en: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13244-016-0534-1
Brady AP. Radiology reporting-from Hemingway to HAL? Insights Imaging. 2018;9(2):237-46. Disponible en: https://insightsimaging.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/s13244-018-0596-3
Blais C, Samson L. The radiologic report: a realistic approach. Can Assoc Radiol J J Assoc Can Radiol. 1995;46(1):19-22.
Caicedo CA, Martínez RA, Mantilla R, Dávila CP. ¿Cómo y por qué migrar hacia el informe radiológico estructurado contextualizado? Rev Colomb Radiol. 2019;30(3):5194-8.
Hall FM. The radiology report of the future. Radiology. 2009;251(2):313-6. Disponible en: http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2512090177
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Revista Colombiana de Radiología
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
La Revista Colombiana de Radiología es de acceso abierto y todos sus artículos se encuentran libre y completamente disponibles en línea para todo público sin costo alguno.
Los derechos patrimoniales de autor de los textos y de las imágenes del artículo como han sido transferidos pertenecen a la Asociación Colombiana de Radiología (ACR). Por tanto para su reproducción es necesario solicitar permisos y se debe hacer referencia al artículo de la Revista Colombiana de Radiología en las presentaciones o artículos nuevos donde se incluyan.
