Speed Versus Interpretation Accuracy: Current Thoughts and Literature Review
Lawrence R. Muroff1,2, and Leonard Berlin3,4,5
Share Share
+ Affiliations:
Citation: American Journal of Roentgenology: 1-3. 10.2214/AJR.19.21290
AbstractFull TextReferencesPDFPDF PlusAdd to FavoritesPermissionsDownload Citation
ABSTRACT :
OBJECTIVE. Whether there is a precise relationship between reading speed and diagnostic accuracy has been an elusive and much debated issue. We discuss the literature and include practical considerations and relevant experience.

CONCLUSION. To our knowledge, no credible relationship has been established between the speed of diagnostic image interpretation and accuracy. Furthermore, no nationally recognized guidelines address these factors, and it would be irresponsible to attribute widespread credibility to anecdotal studies. A variety of factors influence diagnostic accuracy, and length of interpretation time is not an established one.

Keywords: accuracy, interpretation, speed

References

Previous section
1. Sokolovskaya E, Shinde T, Ruchman RB, et al. The effect of faster reporting speed for imaging studies on the number of misses and interpretation errors: a pilot study. J Am Coll Radiol 2015; 12:683–688 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
2. Lehr JL, Lodwick GS, Farrell C, Braaten MO, Virtama P, Kolvisto EL. Direct measurement of the effect of film miniaturization on diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 1976; 118:257–263 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
3. Edwards AJ, Ricketts C, Dubbins PA, Roobottom CA, Wells IP. The effect of reporting speed on plain film reporting errors. Clin Radiol 2003; 58:971–979 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
4. Duszak R Jr, Muroff LR. Measuring and managing radiologist productivity. Part 1. Clinical metrics and benchmarks. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7:452–458 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
5. Duszak R Jr, Muroff LR. Measuring and managing radiologist productivity. Part 2. Beyond the clinical numbers. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7:482–489 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
6. Fitzgerald R. Error in radiology. Clin Radiol 2001; 56:938–946 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
7. Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM, Kim J. Long radiology workdays reduce detection and accommodation accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7:698–704 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
8. Waite S, Kolla S, Jeudy J, et al. Tired in the reading room: the influence of fatigue in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 2017; 14:191–197 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
9. Hanna TN, Zygmont ME, Peterson R, et al. The effects of fatigue from overnight shifts on radiology search patterns and diagnostic performance. J Am Coll Radiol 2018; 15:1709–1716 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
10. Mirvis SE. Toward decreasing diagnostic errors. (editorial) Appl Radiol 2015; 44:6, 8 [Google Scholar]
11. Lamoureux C, Hanna TN, Johnson JO. Diagnostic errors: the effect of shift length, schedule, and volume. Diagn Imaging Eur 2018; 34:40–41 [Google Scholar]
12. Ruutiainen AT, Durand DJ, Scanlon MH, Itri JN. Increased error rates in preliminary reports issued by radiology residents working more than 10 consecutive hours overnight. Acad Radiol 2013; 20:305–311 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
13. Olds DM, Clarke SP. The effect of work hours on adverse events and errors in health care. J Safety Res 2010; 41:153–162 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
14. Weiss DL, Langlotz CP. Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology 2008; 249:739–747 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
15. Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM, Madsen MT, Kramer DJ. Do long radiology workdays affect nodule detection in dynamic CT interpretation? J Am Coll Radiol 2012; 9:191–198 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
16. Berlin L. Does interpreting too many radiologic studies increase the chance of error? AJR 2013; 201:[web]W357 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
17. Berlin L. Faster reporting speed and interpretation errors: conjecture, evidence, and malpractice implications. (letter) J Am Coll Radiol 2015; 12:894–896 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
18. Sokolovskaya E, Shinde T, Ruchman RB, et al. Authors' reply. (letter) J Am Coll Radiol 2015; 12:896–897 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
19. Berlin L. Faster radiologic interpretations, errors, and malpractice: an unavoidable triad? AJR 2018; 210:[web]W92–W93 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
20. Ruchman RB, Shinde T. Reply to “faster radiologic interpretations, errors, and malpractice: an unavoidable triad?” (letter) AJR 2018; 211:[web]W186 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
Address correspondence to L. Berlin (lberlin@live.com).



Read More: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/abs/10.2214/AJR.19.21290