Trainee reporting of computed tomography examinations: do they make mistakes and does it matter?
OBJECTIVE
To determine the accuracy of trainees reporting computed tomography (CT) examinations.


METHODS
Over a 6-month period a single consultant reviewed all the CT examinations reported by registrars in one radiology department. After recording a provisional registrar report each examination was jointly reviewed by the consultant and registrar. The consultant's opinion was regarded as the gold standard. Data collected included: the error rate, whether an error was significant, leading to a change in patient management, and whether the mistake was a false-negative or positive.


RESULTS
Three hundred and thirty-one patients were included in the study. There was an overall error rate of 21.5%. A significant error leading to a change in management was made in 10% of reports, and a significant error that did not lead to a change in management was made in 9.3%; 2.1% of reports had insignificant errors; and 69% of errors were false-negatives.


CONCLUSIONS
Registrars make a significant number of errors affecting patient management when reporting CT and ideally all examinations should be reviewed by a consultant.
Hillier
J C
JC
Department of Radiology, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK.
Tattersall
D J
DJ
Gleeson
F V
FV
D002983:Clinical Competence / Q000592:standards*; D003253:Consultants; D003951:Diagnostic Errors; D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005189:False Positive Reactions; D006801:Humans; D008485:Medical Audit; D008499:Medical Records / Q000592:standards*; D008505:Medical Staff, Hospital / Q000193:education / Q000592:standards*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011871:Radiology / Q000193:education* / Q000592:standards; D012308:Risk Management; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed