Interpretive error in radiology

Stephen Waite, Jinel Scott, Brian Gale, Travis Fuchs, Srinivas Kolla, Deborah Reede

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. Although imaging technology has advanced significantly since the work of Garland in 1949, interpretive error rates remain unchanged. In addition to patient harm, interpretive errors are a major cause of litigation and distress to radiologists. In this article, we discuss the mechanics involved in searching an image, categorize omission errors, and discuss factors influencing diagnostic accuracy. Potential individual- and system-based solutions to mitigate or eliminate errors are also discussed. CONCLUSION. Radiologists use visual detection, pattern recognition, memory, and cognitive reasoning to synthesize final interpretations of radiologic studies. This synthesis is performed in an environment in which there are numerous extrinsic distractors, increasing workloads and fatigue. Given the ultimately human task of perception, some degree of error is likely inevitable even with experienced observers. However, an understanding of the causes of interpretive errors can help in the development of tools to mitigate errors and improve patient safety.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)739-749
Number of pages11
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume208
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Radiology
Visual Pattern Recognition
Patient Harm
Jurisprudence
Patient Safety
Workload
Mechanics
Fatigue
Technology
Radiologists

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Computer-aided detection (CAD)
  • Error
  • Fatigue
  • Malpractice
  • Perception
  • Workload

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Waite, S., Scott, J., Gale, B., Fuchs, T., Kolla, S., & Reede, D. (2017). Interpretive error in radiology. American Journal of Roentgenology, 208(4), 739-749. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16963

Interpretive error in radiology. / Waite, Stephen; Scott, Jinel; Gale, Brian; Fuchs, Travis; Kolla, Srinivas; Reede, Deborah.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 208, No. 4, 01.04.2017, p. 739-749.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Waite, S, Scott, J, Gale, B, Fuchs, T, Kolla, S & Reede, D 2017, 'Interpretive error in radiology', American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 208, no. 4, pp. 739-749. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16963
Waite S, Scott J, Gale B, Fuchs T, Kolla S, Reede D. Interpretive error in radiology. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2017 Apr 1;208(4):739-749. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16963
Waite, Stephen ; Scott, Jinel ; Gale, Brian ; Fuchs, Travis ; Kolla, Srinivas ; Reede, Deborah. / Interpretive error in radiology. In: American Journal of Roentgenology. 2017 ; Vol. 208, No. 4. pp. 739-749.
@article{1063cb48d5ea4aeea858f99b6040699a,
title = "Interpretive error in radiology",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. Although imaging technology has advanced significantly since the work of Garland in 1949, interpretive error rates remain unchanged. In addition to patient harm, interpretive errors are a major cause of litigation and distress to radiologists. In this article, we discuss the mechanics involved in searching an image, categorize omission errors, and discuss factors influencing diagnostic accuracy. Potential individual- and system-based solutions to mitigate or eliminate errors are also discussed. CONCLUSION. Radiologists use visual detection, pattern recognition, memory, and cognitive reasoning to synthesize final interpretations of radiologic studies. This synthesis is performed in an environment in which there are numerous extrinsic distractors, increasing workloads and fatigue. Given the ultimately human task of perception, some degree of error is likely inevitable even with experienced observers. However, an understanding of the causes of interpretive errors can help in the development of tools to mitigate errors and improve patient safety.",
keywords = "Bias, Computer-aided detection (CAD), Error, Fatigue, Malpractice, Perception, Workload",
author = "Stephen Waite and Jinel Scott and Brian Gale and Travis Fuchs and Srinivas Kolla and Deborah Reede",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2214/AJR.16.16963",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "208",
pages = "739--749",
journal = "American Journal of Roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interpretive error in radiology

AU - Waite, Stephen

AU - Scott, Jinel

AU - Gale, Brian

AU - Fuchs, Travis

AU - Kolla, Srinivas

AU - Reede, Deborah

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE. Although imaging technology has advanced significantly since the work of Garland in 1949, interpretive error rates remain unchanged. In addition to patient harm, interpretive errors are a major cause of litigation and distress to radiologists. In this article, we discuss the mechanics involved in searching an image, categorize omission errors, and discuss factors influencing diagnostic accuracy. Potential individual- and system-based solutions to mitigate or eliminate errors are also discussed. CONCLUSION. Radiologists use visual detection, pattern recognition, memory, and cognitive reasoning to synthesize final interpretations of radiologic studies. This synthesis is performed in an environment in which there are numerous extrinsic distractors, increasing workloads and fatigue. Given the ultimately human task of perception, some degree of error is likely inevitable even with experienced observers. However, an understanding of the causes of interpretive errors can help in the development of tools to mitigate errors and improve patient safety.

AB - OBJECTIVE. Although imaging technology has advanced significantly since the work of Garland in 1949, interpretive error rates remain unchanged. In addition to patient harm, interpretive errors are a major cause of litigation and distress to radiologists. In this article, we discuss the mechanics involved in searching an image, categorize omission errors, and discuss factors influencing diagnostic accuracy. Potential individual- and system-based solutions to mitigate or eliminate errors are also discussed. CONCLUSION. Radiologists use visual detection, pattern recognition, memory, and cognitive reasoning to synthesize final interpretations of radiologic studies. This synthesis is performed in an environment in which there are numerous extrinsic distractors, increasing workloads and fatigue. Given the ultimately human task of perception, some degree of error is likely inevitable even with experienced observers. However, an understanding of the causes of interpretive errors can help in the development of tools to mitigate errors and improve patient safety.

KW - Bias

KW - Computer-aided detection (CAD)

KW - Error

KW - Fatigue

KW - Malpractice

KW - Perception

KW - Workload

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85016483541&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85016483541&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2214/AJR.16.16963

DO - 10.2214/AJR.16.16963

M3 - Review article

C2 - 28026210

AN - SCOPUS:85016483541

VL - 208

SP - 739

EP - 749

JO - American Journal of Roentgenology

JF - American Journal of Roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 4

ER -