TY - JOUR
T1 - Analysis of revised imaging reports in diagnostic radiology
T2 - An example from a medical center in Taiwan
AU - Chang, Po Yen
AU - Hsieh, Ming Chih
AU - La, Ying Jung
AU - Chan, Wing P.
PY - 2008/3
Y1 - 2008/3
N2 - To analyze revised imaging reports in diagnostic radiology from a medical center in Taiwan, we prospectively collected revised imaging reports from one institution between September 2004 and June 2006. A total of 297 revised reports was recruited and divided into five types: missed diagnosis, transcription errors, requested by clinicians, obtained additional information, and suboptimal films. Results showed that the rate of revised reports was 0.06%. Of these 297, plain x-rays had 138 reports, CT/MRI had 119, and other special procedure examinations had 40. The most frequent reason for revision of plain x-rays was missed diagnosis (38.4%), whereas obtained additional information was the main reason for revision of CT/MRI reports (41.2%). Transcription errors accounted for most of the revision in other special procedure examinations (37.5%). In this study, the rate of revised reports was correlated well with previous literature (0.07%). Radiologists can learn from such feedback and revision to enhance quality of our imaging reports.
AB - To analyze revised imaging reports in diagnostic radiology from a medical center in Taiwan, we prospectively collected revised imaging reports from one institution between September 2004 and June 2006. A total of 297 revised reports was recruited and divided into five types: missed diagnosis, transcription errors, requested by clinicians, obtained additional information, and suboptimal films. Results showed that the rate of revised reports was 0.06%. Of these 297, plain x-rays had 138 reports, CT/MRI had 119, and other special procedure examinations had 40. The most frequent reason for revision of plain x-rays was missed diagnosis (38.4%), whereas obtained additional information was the main reason for revision of CT/MRI reports (41.2%). Transcription errors accounted for most of the revision in other special procedure examinations (37.5%). In this study, the rate of revised reports was correlated well with previous literature (0.07%). Radiologists can learn from such feedback and revision to enhance quality of our imaging reports.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=44849085481&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=44849085481&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:44849085481
SN - 1018-8940
VL - 33
SP - 23
EP - 29
JO - Chinese Journal of Radiology
JF - Chinese Journal of Radiology
IS - 1
ER -