Comparison of reporting radiographers' and medical doctors' performance in reporting radiographs of the appendicular skeleton, referred by the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: There is an increasing trend towards deploying reporting radiographers in Danish hospitals who, among various professional groups, interpret and report skeletal radiographs from the emergency department (ED). This study aimed to compare the quality of the reports issued by reporting radiographers to three different groups of medical doctors (MDs) who interpret or report skeletal radiographs at the ED. METHODS: Four professional groups (i.e. four reporting radiographers, two radiology trainees, two orthopaedic senior trainees, and two orthopaedic trainees) reported 100 radiographs of the appendicular skeleton. The Consequence of clinical Outcome score (CO-score), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of each group were compared. The relative risk of a false-negative, false-positive or wrong result, the risk of a serious error, as well as the odds ratio of a more severe CO-score for each of the three MD groups, were compared to the reporting radiographers. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the groups in reference to the CO-score (P ≤ 0.001), accuracy (P = .003), specificity (P = .022), and in the proportion of serious errors (P ≤ 0.001). Compared to the reporting radiographers, all three groups of MDs showed a significantly higher CO-score and a significantly increased risk of a wrong result. Moreover, two of the MD groups showed a significantly increased risk of a false-positive result and for severe errors. CONCLUSION: Based on the CO-score, the relative risk of errors, which could potentially cause malpractice in treatment and patient recall, significantly decreased when the reports were completed by reporting radiographers. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: To explore the need for a 24-h radiographer reporting service to the EDs, an upscaled study, like the current, with more participants representing the professional groups is highly recommended.

CO-score; a new method for quality assessment of radiology reports.

INTRODUCTION: Studies on assessing radiology reports commonly calculates sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, which estimates if the observer has tendency to overdiagnose, overlook pathology, or both. This pilot study examines a new method for assessing the quality of radiology reports, based on the patients' clinical outcome. METHODS: Two observers evaluated five hundred reports by four experienced reporting radiographers on X-ray images of the appendicular skeleton. The observers categorised the reports as true or false and gradated the quality of the report from 1 to 3 based on the patients' clinical outcome. We developed a new performance score, called the Consequence of Clinical Outcome (CO-score), which combines the amount of incorrect reports and the severity of errors, to assess the overall quality of the reports. A low CO-score represents high quality with few or inconsiderate errors. RESULTS: The results showed no direct connection between high accuracy and low CO-score. All radiographers achieved high levels of accuracy (range: 96.8%-100%) but varied in CO-score (range: 0.00-0.14). One radiographer achieved an accuracy of 97.6% but a high CO-score of 0.14 as four reports had clinical consequence for the patients and five reports lacked minor details. One report was classified as true positive but was inadequate and led to wrong treatment. CONCLUSION: This study shows that true reports can affect the patients' clinical outcome and reports classified as false can represent insignificant errors. The new CO-score gives a more nuanced view of the reporting quality by including the patients' clinical outcome in the performance score. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We suggest that the CO-score is included as a supplement to the common methods in future studies assessing the quality of radiology reports as well as in clinical audits.