Shift Volume Directly Impacts Neuroradiology Error Rate at a Large Academic Medical Center: The Case for Volume Limits

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Makary MA,
   3. Daniel M

   . Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ 2016;353:i2139 doi:10.1136/bmj.i2139 pmid:27143499

   FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   The flight safety foundation’s aviation safety network. Fatalities per million passengers. https://aviation-safety.net/statistics/. Accessed September 23, 2023
3. 3.↵
   2. Li G,
   3. Warner M,
   4. Lang BH, et al

   . Epidemiology of anesthesia-related mortality in the United States, 1999–2005. Anesthesiology 2009;110:759–65 doi:10.1097/aln.0b013e31819b5bdc pmid:19322941

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Wu MZ,
   3. McInnes MDF,
   4. Macdonald DB, et al

   . CT in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis of interpretation discrepancy rates. Radiology 2014;270:717–35 doi:10.1148/radiol.13131114 pmid:24475832

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Babiarz LS,
   3. Yousem DM

   . Quality control in neuroradiology: discrepancies in image interpretation among academic neuroradiologists. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:37–42 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2704 pmid:22033725

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Borgstede JP,
   3. Lewis RS,
   4. Bhargavan M, et al

   . RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J Am Coll Radiol 2004;1:59–65 doi:10.1016/S1546-1440(03)00002-4

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Kim YW,
   3. Mansfield LT

   . Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:465–70 doi:10.2214/AJR.13.11493 pmid:24555582

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Garland LH

   . On the scientific evaluation of diagnostic procedures. Radiology 1949;52:309–28 doi:10.1148/52.3.309 pmid:18113241

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   2. Loevner LA,
   3. Sonners AI,
   4. Schulman BJ, et al

   . Reinterpretation of cross-sectional images in patients with head and neck cancer in the setting of a multidisciplinary cancer center. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:1622–26 pmid:12427610

   PubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Rosenkrantz AB,
    3. Duszak R,
    4. Babb JS, et al

    . Discrepancy rates and clinical impact of imaging secondary interpretations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Radiology 2018;15:1222–31 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2018.05.037 pmid:30031614

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Kabadi SJ,
    3. Krishnaraj A

    . Strategies for improving the value of the radiology report: a retrospective analysis of errors in formally over-read studies. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:459–66 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2016.08.033 pmid:7884632

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Revesz G,
    3. Kundel HL

    . Psychophysical studies of detection errors in chest radiology. Radiology 1977;123:559–62 doi:10.1148/123.3.559 pmid:860023

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    2. Quekel LGBA,
    3. Kessels AGH,
    4. Goei R, et al

    . Miss rate of lung cancer on the chest radiograph in clinical practice. Chest 1999;115:720–24 doi:10.1378/chest.115.3.720 pmid:10084482

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Abujudeh HH,
    3. Boland GW,
    4. Kaewlai R, et al

    . Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. Eur Radiology 2010;20:1952–57 doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1763-1 pmid:20336300

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Hanna TN,
    3. Lamoureux C,
    4. Krupinski EA, et al

    . Effect of shift, schedule, and volume on interpretive accuracy: a retrospective analysis of 2.9 million radiologic examinations. Radiology 2018;287:205–12 doi:10.1148/radiol.2017170555 pmid:29156150

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Kasalak Ö,
    3. Alnahwi H,
    4. Toxopeus R, et al

    . Work overload and diagnostic errors in radiology. Eur J Radiology 2023;167:111032 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111032 pmid:37579563

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Ivanovic V,
    3. Paydar A,
    4. Chang Y-M, et al

    . Impact of shift volume on neuroradiology diagnostic errors at a large tertiary academic center. Acad Radiology 2023;30:1584–88 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACRA.2022.08.035 pmid:36180325

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Vong S,
    3. Chang J,
    4. Assadsangabi R, et al

    . Analysis of perceptual errors in skull-base pathology. Neuroradiol J 2023;36:515–23 doi:10.1177/19714009221108679 pmid:35722674

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Biddle G,
    3. Assadsangabi R,
    4. Broadhead K, et al

    . Diagnostic errors in cerebrovascular pathology: retrospective analysis of a neuroradiology database at a large tertiary academic medical center. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2022;43:1271–78 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7596 pmid:35926887

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    2. Ivanovic V,
    3. Assadsangabi R,
    4. Hacein-Bey L, et al

    . Neuroradiology diagnostic errors at a tertiary academic centre: effect of participation in tumour boards and physician experience. Clin Radiology 2022;77:607–12 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2022.04.006 pmid:35589432

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Ferguson A,
    3. Assadsangabi R,
    4. Chang J, et al

    . Analysis of misses in imaging of head and neck pathology by attending neuroradiologists at a single tertiary academic medical centre. Clin Radiology 2021;76:786.e9–e13 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2021.06.011 pmid:34304864

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Ivanovic V,
    3. Broadhead K,
    4. Beck R, et al

    . Factors associated with neuroradiologic diagnostic errors at a large tertiary-care academic medical center: a case-control study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2023;221:355–62 doi:10.2214/AJR.22.28925 pmid:36988269

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Goldberg-Stein S,
    3. Frigini LA,
    4. Long S, et al

    . ACR RADPEER committee white paper with 2016 updates: Revised scoring system, new classifications, self-review, and subspecialized reports. J Am Coll Radiology 2017;14:1080–86 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.03.023 pmid:28551339

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Chang C,
    3. Hsieh MK,
    4. Chang WY, et al

    . Determining the optimal number and location of cutoff points with application to data of cervical cancer. PLoS One 2017;12:e0176231 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176231 pmid:28448533

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Ivanovic V,
    3. Broadhead K,
    4. Beck R, et al

    . Factors associated with neuroradiology diagnostic errors at a large tertiary-care academic medical center: a case-control study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2023;221:355–62 doi:10.2214/AJR.22.28925

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Chakraborty H,
    3. Sen PK

    . Resampling method to estimate intra-cluster correlation for clustered binary data. Commun Stat Theory Methods 2016;45:2368–77 doi:10.1080/03610926.2013.870202

    CrossRef
27. 27.↵
    2. Wintermark M,
    3. Gupta V,
    4. Hess C, et al

    . Realistic productivity in academic neuroradiology: a national survey of neuroradiology division chiefs. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2023;44:759–61 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7912 pmid:37348969

    FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    2. Mahesh M,
    3. Ansari AJ,
    4. Mettle FA

    . Patient exposure from radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures in the United States and worldwide: 2009-2018. Radiology 2023;307:e239013 doi:10.1148/radiol.239006 pmid:36972184

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Deckey DG,
    3. Eltorai AEM,
    4. Jindal G, et al

    . Analysis of malpractice claims involving diagnostic and interventional neuroradiology. J Am Coll Radiology 2019;16:764–69 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2018.10.022 pmid:30584036

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Khan A,
    3. Khunte M,
    4. Wu X, et al

    . Malpractice litigation related to diagnosis and treatment of intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2023;44:460–66 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7828 pmid:36997286

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    2. Hatzoglou V,
    3. Omuro AM,
    4. Haque S, et al

    . Second-opinion interpretations of neuroimaging studies by oncologic neuroradiologists can help reduce errors in cancer care. Cancer 2016;122:2708–14 doi:10.1002/cncr.30083 pmid:27219108

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Lysack JT,
    3. Hoy M,
    4. Hudon ME, et al

    . Impact of neuroradiologist second opinion on staging and management of head and neck cancer. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;42:39 doi:10.1186/1916-0216-42-39 pmid:23739037

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Ruutiainen AT,
    3. Durand DJ,
    4. Scanlon MH, et al

    . Increased error rates in preliminary reports issued by radiology residents working more than 10 consecutive hours overnight. Acad Radiology 2013;20:305–11 doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.11.010 pmid:23452475

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Lee MH,
    3. Schemmel AJ,
    4. Pooler BD, et al

    . Workflow dynamics and the imaging value chain: quantifying the effect of designating a nonimage-interpretive task workflow. Curr Probl Diagn Radiology 2017;46:275–81 doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.11.010 pmid:28049559

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Sokolovskaya E,
    3. Shinde T,
    4. Ruchman RB, et al

    . The effect of faster reporting speed for imaging studies on the number of misses and interpretation errors: a pilot study. J Am Coll Radiology 2015;12:683–88 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.03.040 pmid:26003588

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Lu Y,
    3. Arenson RL

    . The academic radiologist’s clinical productivity: an update. Acad Radiology 2005;12:1211–23 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2005.05.015 pmid:16112517

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. McDonald RJ,
    3. Schwartz KM,
    4. Eckel LJ, et al

    . The effects of changes in utilization and technological advancements of cross-sectional imaging on radiologist workload. Acad Radiology 2015;22:1191–98 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2015.05.007 pmid:26210525

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    The Royal College of Radiologists website. Clinical radiology workload: guidance on radiologists' reporting figures. www.rcr.ac.uk. Accessed September 28, 2023
39. 39.↵
    Japanese College of Radiology webpage. JCR statement on appropriate workload of radiologists. jcr.or.jp/english-page. Accessed September 28, 2023