Search

Purpose: Recent Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education policy changes no longer limit the number of consecutive night shifts allowed for trainees. Few studies have examined radiology resident overnight performance over time. This study aimed to compare significant resident-attending discrepancy rates for residents working 2 nonconsecutive versus consecutive weeks of overnight shifts. The authors hypothesized significantly increased week-two discrepancies in the consecutive group.Methods: For 2020, a retrospective analysis of significant overnight resident-attending discrepancy rates over a 24-week period using database searches was performed for residents self-selecting 2 nonconsecutive versus consecutive weeks. The nonconsecutive group typically had a 7-day mix of days off and day shifts between their night shift weeks. Paired and unpaired t tests were performed with p < 0.05 considered significant.Results: For the 24 sets of 2 weeks covered by two residents at a time, eight were nonconsecutive and 16 were consecutive. The nonconsecutive group had 75.0% R4 coverage compared to 37.5% for the consecutive group. There were no significant study volume differences between the groups. A total of 27,906 studies (35.3% cross-sectional [CT and MR], 54.9% radiograph plus fluoroscopy, 9.8% US) were performed with 223 discrepancies (0.80%). Overall discrepancies for the nonconsecutive versus consecutive groups were 39/4505 (0.87%) versus 59/9462 (0.62%; p = 0.32) for week one and 46/4732 (1.0%) versus 79/9207 (0.86%; p = 0.60) for week two with no significant differences between the groups by modality.Conclusion: Residents self-selecting 2 consecutive weeks of overnight shifts do not have increased resident-attending discrepancy rates compared to 2 nonconsecutive weeks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of adding pathology to recent radiologist error characterization schemes of modality and anatomic region and the potential of this data to more specifically inform peer review and peer learning. Methods: Quality assurance data originating from 349 radiologists in a national teleradiology practice were collected for 2019. Interpretive errors were simply categorized as major or minor. Reporting or communication errors were classified as administrative errors. Interpretive errors were then divided by modality, anatomic region and placed into one of 64 pathologic categories. Results: Out of 1,628,464 studies, the discrepancy rate was 0.5% (8181/1,634,201). The 8181 total errors consisted of 2992 major errors (0.18%) and 5189 minor errors (0.32%). Precisely, 3.1% (257/8181) of total errors were administrative. Of major interpretive errors, 75.5% occurred on CT, with CT abdomen and pelvis accounting for 40.4%. The most common pathologic discrepancy for all exams was in the category of mass, nodule, or adenopathy (1583/8181), the majority of which were minor (1315/1583). The most common pathologic discrepancy for the 2937 major interpretive errors was fracture or dislocation (27%; 793/2937), followed by bleed (10.7%; 315/2937). Conclusion: The addition of error-related pathology to peer review is both feasible and practical and provides a more detailed guide to targeted individual and practice-wide peer learning quality improvement efforts. Future research is needed to determine if there are measurable improvements in detection or interpretation of specific pathologies following error feedback and educational interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]