Posters
« Back
Peer Review Audit of Accuracy of Radiology Reports at Croydon University Hospital 2020
EP34192
Poster Title: Peer Review Audit of Accuracy of Radiology Reports at Croydon University Hospital 2020
Submitted on 21 Oct 2020
Author(s): Dr Sophie Canham and Dr Ketul Patel
Affiliations: Croydon University Hospital
This poster was presented at BIR Annual Congress
Poster Views: 122
View poster »


Poster Information
Abstract: Background:
Peer review of images is cited by RCR as being “an intrinsically relevant and cost-effective way of learning” and can be used to demonstrate quality assurance within a radiology department, which is highly valuable. Literature shows that the discrepancy and error rate in CT and MRI reporting is approximately 6.95%.. The American College of Radiologists (ACR) has developed the RadPeer scoring system, the goal of which is to allow for images to be re-interpreted and compared for accuracy.

Aim
This audit aims to analyse a random selection of cross-sectional studies reported by CUH radiologists for accuracy through peer review.

Method:
Retrospective analysis. Cases taken from a 6 month period from 1st July – 31st December 2019. 2% of all cross-sectional (CT and MRI) images were selected at random. Any imaging reported externally or not authorised by a named radiologist was excluded.

Results:
25,421 images (13,687 CTs and 11,734 MRIs) met the inclusion criteria between 1st July 2019 and 31st December 2019. 21,539 studies remained after the exclusion criteria was applied. A total of 3,882 studies were excluded. 448 studies were randomly selected for auditing, which equated to 2.08% of the total (21,539) studies.
448 studies were analysed in total. 94.2% (n=422) of analysed studies were deemed ‘accurate’. 5.8% (n=26) of analysed studies found a discrepancy
24 out of the 26 discrepancies were understandable misses (5.4% of total audited studies), of which 2 of were clinically significant. Another 2 of the discrepancies should not have been missed (0.45% of total audited studies), and 1 of these was clinically significant. In total, 3 out of all audited studies were clinically significant (0.67% of total audited).

Conclusion:
Error rates in the literature have been quoted as 6.95%. CUH overall error rate is 5.8%, which is within acceptable limits. Subjective feedback regarding learning and benefits gained from reviewing imaging has overall been very positive.
Summary: This is a peer review audit of accuracy of radiology reports within a London hospital. Literature shows a 6.95% error rate. We evaluated 448 random studies over a 6 month period. All radiologists in the department were involved in the peer review process and contributed hundreds of hours of work in total. We found a 5.8% error rate, which is acceptable when compared to the literature. Lessons were learnt from discrepancies.Report abuse »
Questions
Ask the author a question about this poster.
Ask a Question »

Creative Commons