P040: Retrospective assessment of discrepancies in preliminary radiological reports in the emergency department

Abstract

Background: Preliminary reports and subsequent immediate management decisions of radiological scans are often performed by emergency physicians and on-call radiology residents. Many academic hospitals have resident-only coverage for after-hour shifts. Generally, these preliminary reports are eventually reviewed by a staff radiologist, during which discrepancies may be identified. Depending on the severity of the discrepancy and the time taken to notify the treating physician, there is potential for significant impact on the patient's care. Aim Statement: In an attempt to identify and minimize errors in radiological readings, and to improve the communication of discrepancies, our project aims to retrospectively audit all radiological discrepancies that have occurred at The Ottawa Hospital's emergency departments from April 2018 to May 2019. Measures & Designs: A systematic review of all cases with noted radiological discrepancies was obtained from the Picture Archive and Communication System software and EPIC platform. Analysis of these cases will allow us to define when errors occur, what is the type and severity of the error, how long it took to relay the discrepancy to a treating physician, and what was the subsequent management impact. Evaluation/Results: We discovered 712 cases with radiological reading discrepancies, 168 major, 527 minor, and 17 incidentals. Interestingly, a significant portion of major (severely affecting care/life-threatning) discrepancies were reported from radiology residents, especially on CT images, although emergency physicians had the most discrepancies (mostly minor). Radiology residents were seen to have more discrepant reports during after-hour services while emergency physicians did not show any specific pattern of discrepant reporting. The average time to report a major discrepancy to a treating physician is 8.8 hours, where the maximum time taken was 104 hours and the minimum was 0.2 hours. 56% of reports with major discrepancies made no mention of who was notified. Discussion/Impact: By identifying weak points in radiological reporting, our results will allow us to provide suggestions at an administration and teaching level to minimize discrepancies. It is critical to create a workflow where mistakes are mitigated, and communication is efficient and standardized to prevent patient harm from delayed or incorrect diagnosis.