« Back
Peer Review Audit of Accuracy of Radiology Reports at Croydon University Hospital 2020
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.

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

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.

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).

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 »
Ask the author a question about this poster.
Ask a Question »

Creative Commons