1 / 17

Evaluation of Head CT Exams - Resident & Attending Diagnoses

Evaluation of Head CT Exams - Resident & Attending Diagnoses. Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD William Berger, MD William Erly, MD University of Arizona. Rationale. Many medical centers offer 24-hour CT interpretation for the ED On-call system Teleradiology

gaille
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluation of Head CT Exams - Resident & Attending Diagnoses

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of Head CT Exams - Resident & Attending Diagnoses Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD William Berger, MD William Erly, MD University of Arizona

  2. Rationale • Many medical centers offer 24-hour CT interpretation for the ED • On-call system • Teleradiology • Radiology residents often provide preliminary interpretations

  3. Rationale • Previous reports indicate overall resident miss rates are low (< 2%) • No one has looked at differences between upper & lower level residents • Assessing the types of errors made by residents may help focus educational efforts

  4. Methods • 1324 consecutive CT head exams ordered by ED • Initially interpreted by 1 of18 radiology residents • Interpretation • Confidence rating on 6-point scale • 1 of 5 CAQ neuroradiologists interpreted exams same day or next morning • Determined correlation of diagnoses

  5. Correlation of Interpretations • Agree • Disagree - Insignificant • No potential for adverse patient outcome • Failure to identify ischemic white matter degeneration • There was no error in synthesis

  6. Correlation of Interpretations • Disagree - Significant • Potential for adverse patient outcome • Mistaking cytoxic edema of metestatic disease for ischemic change • Gross error in synthesis without adverse outcome potential • Mistaking dysgenesis of the corpus callosum for chronic hydrocephalus

  7. Diagnostic Correlation

  8. Disagreement Cases X2 = 44.46, df = 2, p = 0.0001

  9. Year of Residency X2 = 13.80, df = 6, p = 0.032

  10. Resident Confidence X2 = 37.55, df = 4, p = 0.0001

  11. Year of Residency F = 92.01, p = 0.0001

  12. Confidence & Cases X2 = 74.56, df = 2, p = 0.0001

  13. Disagree - Insignificant • 42 False Negatives • Chronic ischemic foci • Fractures • Atrophy • 17 False Positives • Intracranial hemorrhage • Fractures

  14. Disagree - Significant • 14 False Negative • Fractures • Acute right occipital infarct • Temporal lobe contusion • Chronic cortical infarct • Clius mass • Small thalamic hemorrhage

  15. Disagree - Significant • 3 Misinterpretation • Metastatic disease as ischemic focus • Tumor as infarct • Chiari II malformation with callosal dysgenesis as hygroma-hydrocephalus-mass effect • 2 False Positive • Cerebellar Hemorrhage • Cerebral contusion

  16. Conclusions • Resident error is low (< 2%) • Rate of potential change in patient outcome due to resident misinterpretation is low (0.05%) • Year of residency affects performance & confidence

  17. Conclusions • When resident confidence is low, immediate consultation with neuroradiologist is advisable • Efforts to reduce resident errors should focus on ensuring that all bone window images are reviewed and on the signs of cytoxic versus vasogenic edema

More Related