What is the added value of specialist radiology review of multidisciplinary team meeting cases in a tertiary care center?

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are an important component of the workload of radiologists. This study investigated how often subspecialized radiologists change patient management in MDTMs at a tertiary care institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over 2 years, six subspecialty radiologists documented their contributions to MDTMs at a tertiary care center. Both in-house and external imaging examinations were discussed at the MDTMs. All imaging examinations (whether primary or second opinion) were interpreted and reported by subspecialty radiologist prior to the MDTMs. The management change ratio (MCratio) of the radiologist was defined as the number of cases in which the radiologist's input in the MDTM changed patient management beyond the information that was already provided by the in-house (primary or second opinion) radiology report, as a proportion of the total number of cases whose imaging examinations were prepared for demonstration in the MDTM. RESULTS: Sixty-eight MDTMs were included. The time required for preparing and attending all MDTMs (excluding imaging examinations that had not been reported yet) was 11,000 min, with a median of 172 min (IQR 113-200 min) per MDTM, and a median of 9 min (IQR 8-13 min) per patient. The radiologists' input changed patient management in 113 out of 1138 cases, corresponding to an MCratio of 8.4%. The median MCratio per MDTM was 6% (IQR 0-17%). CONCLUSION: Radiologists' time investment in MDTMs is considerable relative to the small proportion of cases in which they influence patient management in the MDTM. The use of radiologists for MDTMs should therefore be improved. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The use of radiologists for MDTMs (multidisciplinary team meetings) should be improved, because their time investment in MDTMs is considerable relative to the small proportion of cases in which they influence patient management in the MDTM. KEY POINTS: • Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are an important component of the workload of radiologists. • In a tertiary care center in which all imaging examinations have already been interpreted and reported by subspecialized radiologists before the MDTM takes place, the median time investment of a radiologist for preparing and demonstrating one MDTM patient is 9 min. • In this setting, the radiologist changes patient management in only a minority of cases in the MDTM.

Is work overload associated with diagnostic errors on 18F-FDG-PET/CT?

PURPOSE: To determine the association between workload and diagnostic errors on 18F-FDG-PET/CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 103 18F-FDG-PET/CT scans with a diagnostic error that was corrected with an addendum between March 2018 and July 2023. All scans were performed at a tertiary care center. The workload of each nuclear medicine physician or radiologist who authorized the 18F-FDG-PET/CT report was determined on the day the diagnostic error was made and normalized for his or her own average daily production (workloadnormalized). A workloadnormalized of more than 100% indicates that the nuclear medicine physician or radiologist had a relative work overload, while a value of less than 100% indicates a relative work underload on the day the diagnostic error was made. The time of the day the diagnostic error was made was also recorded. Workloadnormalized was compared to 100% using a signed rank sum test, with the hypothesis that it would significantly exceed 100%. A Mann-Kendall test was performed to test the hypothesis that diagnostic errors would increase over the course of the day. RESULTS: Workloadnormalized (median of 121%, interquartile range: 71 to 146%) on the days the diagnostic errors were made was significantly higher than 100% (P = 0.014). There was no significant upward trend in the frequency of diagnostic errors over the course of the day (Mann-Kendall tau = 0.05, P = 0.7294). CONCLUSION: Work overload seems to be associated with diagnostic errors on 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Diagnostic errors were encountered throughout the entire working day, without any upward trend towards the end of the day.

Work overload and diagnostic errors in radiology.

PURPOSE: To determine the association between workload and diagnostic errors on clinical CT scans. METHOD: This retrospective study was performed at a tertiary care center and covered the period from January 2020 to March 2023. All clinical CT scans that contained an addendum describing a perceptual error (i.e. failure to detect an important abnormality) in the original report that was issued on office days between 7.30 a.m. and 18.00 p.m., were included. The workload of the involved radiologist on the day of the diagnostic error was calculated in terms of relative value units, and normalized for the known average daily production of each individual radiologist (workloadnormalized). A workloadnormalized of less than 100% indicates relative work underload, while a workloadnormalized of > 100% indicates relative work overload in terms of reported examinations on an individual radiologist's basis. RESULTS: A total of 49 diagnostic errors were included. Top-five locations of diagnostic errors were lung (n = 8), bone (n = 8), lymph nodes (n = 5), peritoneum (n = 5), and liver (n = 4). Workloadnormalized on the days the diagnostic errors were made was on average 121% (95% confidence interval: 106% to 136%), which was significantly higher than 100% (P = 0.008). There was no significant upward monotonic trend in diagnostic errors over the course of the day (Mann-Kendall tau of 0.005, P = 1.000), and there were no other notable temporal trends either. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists appear to have a relative work overload when they make a diagnostic error on CT. Diagnostic errors occurred throughout the entire day, without any increase towards the end of the day.

Why don't we inform patients about the risk of diagnostic errors?

The principles of autonomy and informed consent dictate that patients who undergo a radiological examination should actually be informed about the risk of diagnostic errors. Implementing such a policy could potentially increase the quality of care. However, due to the vast number of radiological examinations that are performed in each hospital each day, financial constraints, and the risk of losing trust, patients, and income if the requirement for informed consent is not imposed by law on a state or national level, it may be challenging to inform patients about the risk of diagnostic errors. Future research is necessary to determine if and how an informed consent procedure for diagnostic errors can be implemented in clinical practice.

[18F]FDG-PET/CT in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with COVID-19 ARDS and persistent inflammation.

Purpose: We report the findings of four critically ill patients who underwent an [18F]FDG-PET/CT because of persistent inflammation during the late phase of their COVID-19. Methods: Four mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 were retrospectively discussed in a research group to evaluate the added value of [18F]FDG-PET/CT. Results: Although pulmonary PET/CT findings differed, bilateral lung anomalies could explain the increased CRP and leukocytes in all patients. This underscores the limited ability of the routine laboratory to discriminate inflammation from secondary infections. Based on PET/CT findings, a secondary infection/inflammatory focus was suspected in two patients (pancreatitis and gastritis). Lymphadenopathy was present in patients with a detectable SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Muscle uptake around the hips or shoulders was observed in all patients, possibly due to the process of heterotopic ossification. Conclusion: This case series illustrates the diagnostic potential of [18F]FDG-PET/CT imaging in critically ill patients with persistent COVID-19 for the identification of other causes of inflammation and demonstrates that this technique can be performed safely in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.

A new medical imaging postprocessing and interpretation concept to investigate the clinical relevance of incidentalomas: can we keep Pandora's box closed?

BACKGROUND: Incidental imaging findings (incidentalomas) are common, but there is currently no effective means to investigate their clinical relevance. PURPOSE: To introduce a new concept to postprocess a medical imaging examination in a way that incidentalomas are concealed while its diagnostic potential is maintained to answer the referring physician's clinical questions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A deep learning algorithm was developed to automatically eliminate liver, gallbladder, pancreas, spleen, adrenal glands, lungs, and bone from unenhanced computed tomography (CT). This deep learning algorithm was applied to a separately held set of unenhanced CT scans of 27 patients who underwent CT to evaluate for urolithiasis, and who had a total of 32 incidentalomas in one of the aforementioned organs. RESULTS: Median visual scores for organ elimination on modified CT were 100% for the liver, gallbladder, spleen, and right adrenal gland, 90%-99% for the pancreas, lungs, and bones, and 80%-89% for the left adrenal gland. In 26 out of 27 cases (96.3%), the renal calyces and pelves, ureters, and urinary bladder were completely visible on modified CT. In one case, a short (<1 cm) trajectory of the left ureter was not clearly visible due to adjacent atherosclerosis that was mistaken for bone by the algorithm. Of 32 incidentalomas, 28 (87.5%) were completely concealed on modified CT. CONCLUSION: This preliminary technical report demonstrated the feasibility of a new approach to postprocess and evaluate medical imaging examinations that can be used by future prospective research studies with long-term follow-up to investigate the clinical relevance of incidentalomas.

Did medical doctors who order abdominal CT scans during on-call hours truly become worse at clinical reasoning? Yes, they did.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate temporal changes in clinical reasoning quality of physicians who requested abdominal CT scans at a tertiary care center during on-call hours within a 15-year period. METHODS: This retrospective study included 531 patients who underwent abdominal CT at a tertiary care center during on-call hours on 36 randomly sampled unique calendar days in each of the years between 2005 and 2019. Clinical reasoning quality was expressed as a percentage (0-100%), taking into account the degree by which the differential diagnoses on the CT request form matched the CT diagnosis. Temporal changes in the quality of clinical reasoning and number of CT scans were assessed using Mann-Kendall tests. Associations between the quality of clinical reasoning with patient age and gender, requesting department, and time of CT scanning were determined with linear regression analyses. RESULTS: The median annual clinical reasoning score was 0.4% (interquartile range: 0.3 to 0.6%; range: 0.1 to 1.9%). The quality of clinical reasoning significantly decreased between 2005 and 2019 (Mann-Kendall Tau of -0.829, p < 0.001), while the number of abdominal CT scans significantly increased (Mann-Kendall tau of 0.790, p < 0.001). There was a significant association between the quality of clinical reasoning and patient age (ß coefficient of 0.210, p = 0.002). The quality of clinical reasoning was not significantly associated with patient gender, requesting department, or time of CT scanning. CONCLUSION: The clinical reasoning quality of physicians who request abdominal CT scans during on-call hours has deteriorated over time. Clinical reasoning appears to be worse in younger patients. KEY POINTS: • In patients with suspected acute abdominal pathology who are scheduled to undergo CT scanning, referring physicians generally have difficulties in making an accurate pretest (differential) diagnosis. • Clinical reasoning quality of physicians who request acute abdominal CT scans has deteriorated over the years, while the number of CT scans has shown a significant increase. • Clinical reasoning quality appears to be worse in younger patients in this setting.

Value-based radiology cannot thrive without reforms and research.

KEY POINTS: • A value-based system aims to achieve improved patient-relevant outcomes without increasing costs.• Value-based radiology cannot thrive as long as volume dominates as the most important metric to reward clinical performance.• Reforms and research are needed to enable radiologists to practice value-based healthcare.

Radiologist-patient consultation of imaging findings after neck ultrasonography: An opportunity to practice value-based radiology.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how patients experience a radiologist-patient consultation of imaging findings directly after neck ultrasonography (US), and how much time this consumes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective randomized study included 109 consecutive patients who underwent neck US, of whom 44 had a radiologist-patient consultation of US results directly after the examination, and 65 who had not. RESULTS: The median ratings of all healthcare quality metrics (friendliness of the radiologist, explanation of the radiologist, skill of the radiologist, radiologist's concern for comfort during the examination, radiologist's concern for patient questions/worries, overall rating of the examination, and likelihood of recommending the examination) were either good/high or very good/very high, without any significant differences between both patient groups. Patients who did not discuss the US results with the radiologist, were significantly more worried during the examination (P = 0.040) and had significantly higher anxiety levels after completion of the US examination (P = 0.027) than patients who discussed the US results with the radiologist. Fifty-one out of 55 responding patients (92.7%) indicated a radiologist-patient consultation of US results to be important. The median duration of US examinations that included a radiologist-patient consultation of US results was 7.57 min (range: 5.15-12.10 min), while the median duration of US examinations without a radiologist-patient consultation of US results was 7.34 min (range: 3.45-14.32 min), without any significant difference (P = 0.637). CONCLUSION: A radiologist-patient consultation of imaging findings after neck US decreases patient anxiety, is desired by most patients, and does not significantly prolong total examination time.

Radiologist-patient communication of musculoskeletal ultrasonography results: a choice between added value and costs.

BACKGROUND: Literature on radiologist-patient communication of musculoskeletal ultrasonography (US) results is currently lacking. PURPOSE: To investigate the patient's view on receiving the results from a radiologist after a musculoskeletal US examination, and the additional time required to provide such a service. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective study included 106 outpatients who underwent musculoskeletal US, and who were equally randomized to either receive or not receive the results from the radiologist directly after the examination. RESULTS: In both randomization groups, all quality performance metrics (radiologist's friendliness, explanation, skill, concern for comfort, concern for patient questions/worries, overall rating of the examination, and likelihood of recommending the examination) received median scores of good/high to very good/very high. Patients who had received their US results from the radiologist rated the radiologist's explanation and concern for patient questions/worries as significantly higher (P = 0.009 and P = 0.002) than patients who had not. In both randomization groups, there were no significant differences between anxiety levels before and after the US examination (P = 0.222 and P = 1.000). Of the 48 responding patients, 46 (95.8%) rated a radiologist-patient discussion of US findings as important. US examinations with a radiologist-patient communication regarding US findings (median = 11.29 min) were significantly longer (P < 0.0001) than those without (median = 8.08 min). CONCLUSION: Even without communicating musculoskeletal US results directly to patients, radiologists can still achieve high ratings from patients for their communication and empathy. Nevertheless, patient experience can be further enhanced if a radiologist adds this communication to the examination. However, this increases total examination time and therefore costs.

MRI after Whoops procedure: diagnostic value for residual sarcoma and predictive value for an incomplete second resection.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of MRI for the detection and assessment of the anatomic extent of residual sarcoma after a Whoops procedure (unplanned sarcoma resection) and its utility for the prediction of an incomplete second resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included consecutive patients who underwent a Whoops procedure, successively followed by gadolinium chelate-enhanced MRI and second surgery at a tertiary care sarcoma center. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were included, of whom 19 with residual tumor at the second surgery and 8 with an incomplete second resection (R1: n = 6 and R2: n = 2). Interobserver agreement for residual tumor at MRI after a Whoops procedure was perfect (κ value: 1.000). MRI achieved a sensitivity of 47.4% (9/19), a specificity of 100% (7/7), a positive predictive value of 100% (9/9), and a negative predictive value of 70.0% (7/17) for the detection of residual tumor. MRI correctly classified 2 of 19 residual sarcomas as deep-seated (i.e., extending beyond the superficial muscle fascia) but failed to correctly classify 3 of 19 residual sarcomas as deep-seated. There were no significant associations between MRI findings (presence of residual tumor, maximum tumor diameter, anatomic tumor extent, tumor margins, tumor spiculae, and tumor tail on the superficial fascia) with an incomplete (R1 or R2) second resection. CONCLUSION: Gadolinium chelate-enhanced MRI is a reproducible method to rule in residual sarcoma, but it is insufficiently accurate to rule out and assess the anatomic extent or residual sarcoma after a Whoops procedure. Furthermore, MRI has no utility in predicting an incomplete second resection.

Requests for radiologic imaging: Prevalence and determinants of inadequate quality according to RI-RADS.

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence and determinants of radiologic imaging requests that are of inadequate quality according to the Reason for exam Imaging Reporting and Data System (RI-RADS). METHODS: This study included a random sample of 673 radiologic examinations performed at a tertiary care center. The quality of each imaging request was graded according to RI-RADS. Ordinal regression analysis was performed to determine the association of RI-RADS grade with patient age, gender, and hospital status, indication for imaging, requesting specialty, imaging modality, body region, time of examination, and relationship with previous imaging within the past one year. RESULTS: RI-RADS grades A (adequate request), B (barely adequate request), C (considerably limited request), and D (deficient request) were assigned to 159 (23.6 %), 166 (24.7 %), 214 (31.8 %), and 134 (19.9 %) of cases, respectively. Indication for imaging, requesting specialty, and body region were independently significantly associated with RI-RADS grades. Specifically, routine preoperative imaging (odds ratio [OR]: 3.422, P = 0.030) and transplantation imaging requests (OR: 8.710, P = 0.000) had a higher risk of poorer RI-RADS grades, whereas infection/inflammation as indication for imaging (OR: 0.411, P = 0.002), pediatrics as requesting specialty (OR: 0.400, P = 0.007), and head (OR: 0.384, P = 0.017), spine (OR: 0.346, P = 0.016), and upper extremity (OR: 0.208, P = 0.000) as body regions had a lower risk of poorer RI-RADS grades. CONCLUSION: The quality of radiologic imaging requests is inadequate in >75 % of cases, and is affected by several factors. The data from this study can be used as a baseline and benchmark for further investigation and improvement.

Patient safety incidents in radiology: frequency and distribution of incident types.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety incidents may be a valuable source of information to learn from and to prevent future errors. PURPOSE: To determine the distribution of patient safety incident types in radiology according to the International Classification for Patient Safety (ICPS), and to comprehensively review those incidents that were either harmful or serious in terms of risk of patient harm and reoccurrence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The most recent five-year database (2014-2019) of a radiology incident reporting system was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 480 patient safety incidents were included. Top three ICPS incident types were clinical administration (119/480, 24.8%), resources/organizational management (112/480, 23.3%), and clinical process/procedure (91/480, 19.0%). Harm severities were none in 457 (95.2%) cases, mild in 14 (2.9%), moderate in 4 (0.8%), severe in 3 (0.6%), and unknown in one case. Subsequent Prevention Recovery Information System for Monitoring and Analysis (PRISMA) reviews were performed in 4 (0.8%) cases. The three patient safety incidents that caused severe harm (of which one underwent PRISMA review) involved resources/organizational management (n = 1), clinical process/procedure (n = 1), and medication/IV fluids (n = 1). Three other cases (with no harm in two cases and moderate harm in one case) that underwent PRISMA review involved resources/organizational management (n = 2) and medical device/equipment/property (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Radiology-related patient safety incidents predominantly occur in three ICPS domains (clinical administration, resources/organizational management, and clinical process/procedure). Harmful/serious incidents are relatively rare. The standardly and transparently reported findings from this study may be used for healthcare quality improvement, benchmarking purposes, and as a primer for future studies.

Towards a benchmark of abdominal CT use during duty shifts: 15-year sample from the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To investigate temporal changes in the utilization and patient impact of abdominal CT during duty shifts in the past 15 years. METHODS: This study included a random sample of 1761 abdominal CT scans that were made during evening and night duty shifts in a tertiary care center between 2005 and 2019. RESULTS: The number of CT scans significantly increased (almost threefold) between 2005 and 2019 (Mann-Kendall tau of 0.829, P < 0.001). The proportion of negative CT scans (i.e., the absence of findings related to the reason that the CT scan was made and no disease deterioration or other new and clinically relevant findings compared to a previous imaging examination when available) was 40.0% (700/1749) in the entire 15-year study frame and did not significantly change over time (Mann-Kendall tau of - 0.219, P = 0.276). The overall frequency of same-day hospital discharge after negative CT was 20.6% (150/729) in the past 15 years and showed a significant increase over time (Mann-Kendall tau of 0.505, P = 0.010). The overall proportion of CT scans with incidental findings was 3.4% (60/1761) and remained statistically stable over the past 15 years (Mann-Kendall tau of - 0.057, P = 0.804). CONCLUSION: Over the past 15 years, the number of CT scans and the frequency of same-day hospital discharge after negative CT have increased, while the proportions of negative CT scans and incidental findings have remained stable in our tertiary care center. The data from this study can be used for interinstitutional benchmarking to define, monitor, and improve the appropriateness of imaging utilization.

Predictive value of a false-negative focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) result in patients with confirmed traumatic abdominal injury.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if patients with confirmed traumatic abdominal injury and a false-negative focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) examination have a more favorable prognosis than those with a true-positive FAST. METHODS: This study included 97 consecutive patients with confirmed traumatic abdominal injury (based on computed tomography [CT] and/or surgical findings) who underwent FAST. RESULTS: FAST was false-negative in 40 patients (41.2%) and true-positive in 57 patients (58.8%). Twenty-two patients (22.7%) had an unfavorable outcome (defined as the need for an interventional radiologic procedure, laparotomy, or death due to abdominal injury). Univariately, a false-negative FAST (odds ratio [OR] 0.24; p = 0.017) and a higher systolic blood pressure (OR, 0.97 per mmHg increase; p = 0.034) were significantly associated with a favorable outcome, whereas contrast extravasation on CT (OR, 7.17; p = 0.001) and shock index classification (OR, 1.89 for each higher class; p = 0.046) were significantly associated with an unfavorable outcome. Multivariately, only contrast extravasation on CT remained significantly associated with an unfavorable outcome (OR, 4.64; p = 0.016). When excluding contrast extravasation on CT from multivariate analysis, only a false-negative FAST result was predictive of a favorable outcome (OR, 0.28; p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: Trauma patients with confirmed abdominal injury and a false-negative FAST have a better outcome than those with a positive FAST. FAST may be valuable for risk stratification and prognostication in patients with a high suspicion of abdominal injury when CT has not been performed yet or when CT is not available.

Patient safety in nuclear medicine: identification of key strategic areas for vigilance and improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the types of patient safety incidents and associated harm in nuclear medicine practice. METHODS: This study included 147 patient safety incidents related to nuclear medicine practice and submitted to the incident reporting system of a tertiary care nuclear medicine department between 2014 and 2019. RESULTS: The top-three incident types according to the International Classification for Patient Safety (ICPS) were medication/IV fluids (36/147, 24.5%), clinical administration (28/147, 19.0%), and clinical process/procedure (27/147, 18.4%), altogether comprising 61.9% of incidents. Within the medication/IV fluids domain, half of incident subtypes were attributable to supply/ordering, omitted medicine or dose, and wrong dose/strength of frequency. Within the clinical administration domain, appointment and wrong patient represented the majority of incident subtypes. Within the clinical process/procedure domain, the majority of incident subtypes fell in the categories: specimens/results and incomplete/inadequate. There was no patient harm in 145 (98.6%) of cases, mild patient harm in 1 (0.7%) case, and in 1 (0.7%) case, it remained unclear if there was patient harm. In 4 (2.7%) cases, a Prevention Recovery Information System for Monitoring and Analysis evaluation was performed because of the high risk of reoccurrence and patient harm. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patient safety incidents in nuclear medicine occur in three main ICPS categories (medication/IV fluids, clinical administration, and clinical process/procedure, in order of decreasing frequency). These can be considered as key strategic areas for incident prevention and patient safety improvement. Nevertheless, the rate of actual patient harm was very low in our series.

A new complication registration system for errors in radiology: Initial 5-year experience in a tertiary care radiology department.

PURPOSE: To describe and evaluate our initial 5-year experience with a new complication registration system for errors in radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study reviewed all cases that were submitted to a new complication registration system of a tertiary care radiology department between 2015-2019. RESULTS: Sixty-seven cases were included. In the group of diagnostic complications/errors (n = 34), there were 21 perceptual errors and 13 cognitive errors. This 61.8 % (21/34) perceptual error rate was not significantly different (P = 0.297) from the 70 % perceptual error rate known from previous literature. In the group of interventional complications (n=19), most cases (47.4 % [9/19]) concerned symptomatic or major hemorrhage. In the group of organizational complications/errors (n=14), the leading incident type according to the International Classification System for Patient Safety was clinical process/procedure with wrong body part/side/site as subclassification (35.7 % [5/14]). Harm severities were none (n=35), mild (n=10), moderate (n=10), severe (n=6), death (n=5), and unknown (n=1). Harm severity of interventional complications was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than that of organizational complications, while there were no significant differences in harm severities between other groups of complications. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to implement the radiologic complication registration system that was described in this study. Perceptual mistakes, hemorrhage, and procedures on the wrong body part/side/site dominated in the categories of diagnostic, interventional, and organizational complications/errors, respectively, and these should be the topic of vigilance in clinical practice and further research. Future studies are also required to determine whether this complication registration system reduces radiologic errors and improves healthcare quality.