Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the human resources required for a retrospective quality review of different percentages of all routine diagnostic procedures in the Department of Radiology at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three board-certified radiologists retrospectively evaluated the quality of the radiological reports of a total of 150 examinations (5 different examination types: abdominal CT, chest CT, mammography, conventional X-ray images and abdominal MRI). Each report was assigned a RADPEER score of 1 to 3 (score 1: concur with previous interpretation; score 2: discrepancy in interpretation/not ordinarily expected to be made; score 3: discrepancy in interpretation/should be made most of the time). The time (in seconds, s) required for each review was documented and compared. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to calculate the total workload for reviewing different percentages of the total annual reporting volume of the clinic. RESULTS: Among the total of 450 reviews analyzed, 91.1 % (410/450) were assigned a score of 1 and 8.9 % (40/450) were assigned scores of 2 or 3. The average time (in seconds) required for a peer review was 60.4 s (min. 5 s, max. 245 s). The reviewer with the greatest clinical experience needed significantly less time for reviewing the reports than the two reviewers with less clinical expertise (p < 0.05). Average review times were longer for discrepant ratings with a score of 2 or 3 (p < 0.05). The total time requirement calculated for reviewing all 5 types of examination for one year would be more than 1200 working hours. CONCLUSION: A retrospective peer review of reports of radiological examinations using the RADPEER system requires considerable human resources. However, to improve quality, it seems feasible to peer review at least a portion of the total yearly reporting volume. KEY POINTS: · A systematic retrospective assessment of the content of radiological reports using the RADPEER system involves high personnel costs.. · The retrospective assessment of all reports of a clinic or practice seems unrealistic due to the lack of highly specialized personnel.. · At least part of all reports should be reviewed with the aim of improving the quality of reports.. CITATION FORMAT: · Maurer MH, Brönnimann M, Schroeder C et al. Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 160 - 167.

Retroperitoneal paravertebral ganglioneuroma: a multidisciplinary approach facilitates less radical surgery.

BACKGROUND: Ganglioneuroma (GN) of the adult is a rare benign tumour originating from neural crest-derived cells. In most cases, GN is found in the mediastinum or retroperitoneum incidentally and may present with unspecific symptoms caused by space-occupying effects. The correct diagnosis of a retroperitoneal mass is still a challenge. Nevertheless, a preoperatively confirmed diagnosis of GN may support the concept of a less radical approach and may help to prevent unnecessary morbidity or loss of function. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of a symptomatic retroperitoneal paravertebral GN in a 33-year-old woman. She has been referred with abdominal discomfort, lancinating pain in the right leg, headache and nausea. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a solid paravertebral tumour adjacent to the psoas muscle. Computed tomography-guided core needle biopsy yielded the diagnosis of GN. The tumour was resected completely via a laparotomy. Immunohistopathological examinations confirmed a benign GN. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic studies and therapeutic interventions of retroperitoneal GN are discussed. In our case, a core needle biopsy preceding complete resection was helpful to prevent too extensive surgical approach.