The New Radiology Resident: Quick Tips for Success

Author(s):  
Kirang Patel ◽  
Amy Patel
Keyword(s):  
CJEM ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Lamb ◽  
Paria Kashani ◽  
John Ryan ◽  
Guy Hebert ◽  
Adnan Sheikh ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundOne of the many challenges facing emergency departments (EDs) across North America is timely access to emergency radiology services. Academic institutions, which are typically also regional referral centres, frequently require cross-sectional studies to be performed 24 hours a day with expedited final reports to accelerate patient care and ED flow.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine if the presence of an in-house radiologist, in addition to a radiology resident dedicated to the ED, had a significant impact on report turnaround time.MethodsPreliminary and final report turnaround times, provided by the radiology resident and staff, respectively, for patients undergoing computed tomography or ultrasonography of their abdomen/pelvis in 2008 (before the implementation of emergency radiology in-house staff service) were compared to those performed during the same time frame in 2009 and 2010 (after staffing protocols were changed).ResultsA total of 1,624 reports were reviewed. Overall, there was no statistically significant decrease in the preliminary report turnaround times between 2008 and 2009 (p = 0.1102), 2009 and 2010 (p = 0.6232), or 2008 and 2010 (p = 0.0890), although times consistently decreased from a median of 2.40 hours to 2.08 hours to 2.05 hours (2008 to 2009 to 2010). There was a statistically significant decrease in final report turnaround times between 2008 and 2009 (p < 0.0001), 2009 and 2010 (p < 0.0011), and 2008 and 2010 (p < 0.0001). Median final report times decreased from 5.00 hours to 3.08 hours to 2.75 hours in 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. There was also a significant decrease in the time interval between preliminary and final reports between 2008 and 2009 (p < 0.0001) and 2008 and 2010 (p < 0.0001) but no significant change between 2009 and 2010 (p = 0.4144).ConclusionOur results indicate that the presence of a dedicated ED radiologist significantly reduces final report turnaround time and thus may positively impact the time to ED patient disposition. Patient care is improved when attending radiologists are immediately available to read complex films, both in terms of health care outcomes and regarding the need for repeat testing. Providing emergency physicians with accurate imaging findings as rapidly as possible facilitates effective and timely management and thus optimizes patient care.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 205846011880723
Author(s):  
Elias Vaattovaara ◽  
Marko Nikki ◽  
Mika Nevalainen ◽  
Mervi Ilmarinen ◽  
Osmo Tervonen

Background In many emergency radiology units, most of the night-time work is performed by radiology residents. Residents’ preliminary reports are typically reviewed by an attending radiologist. Accordingly, it is known that discrepancies in these preliminary reports exist. Purpose To evaluate the quality of night-time computed tomography (CT) interpretations made by radiology residents in the emergency department. Material and Methods Retrospectively, 1463 initial night-time CT interpretations given by a radiology resident were compared to the subspecialist’s re-interpretation given the following weekday. All discrepancies were recorded and classified into different groups regarding their possible adverse effect for the emergency treatment. The rate of discrepancies was compared between more and less experienced residents and between different anatomical regions. Results The overall rate of misinterpretations was low. In 2.3% (33/1463) of all night-time CT interpretations, an important and clinically relevant diagnosis was missed. No fatalities occurred due to CT misinterpretations during the study. The total rate of discrepancies including clinically irrelevant findings such as anatomical variations was 12.2% (179/1463). Less experienced residents were more likely to miss the correct diagnosis than more experienced residents (18.3% vs. 10.9%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.82, P = 0.001). Discrepancies were more common in body CT interpretations than in neurological CTs (18.1% vs. 9.1%, OR = 2.30, P < 0.0001). Conclusion The rate of clinically important misinterpretations in CT examinations by radiology residents was found to be low. Experience helps in lowering the rate of misinterpretations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacinta E. Browne ◽  
Chris Gu ◽  
Robert T. Fazzio ◽  
Andrew J. Fagan ◽  
Donald J. Tradup ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 752-758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rihan Khan ◽  
Elizabeth Krupinski ◽  
J. Allen Graham ◽  
Les Benodin ◽  
Petra Lewis

1977 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 484-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman L. Martin
Keyword(s):  

2006 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 770-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun-Shan Yam ◽  
Jonathan Kruskal ◽  
Ivan Pedrosa ◽  
Herbert Kressel

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document