Suppr超能文献

国际远程放射学服务中差异率的系统调查。

Systematic survey of discrepancy rates in an international teleradiology service.

作者信息

Agrawal Anjali, Agrawal Anurag, Pandit Meenakshi, Kalyanpur Arjun

机构信息

Teleradiology Solutions, New Haven, CT, USA.

出版信息

Emerg Radiol. 2011 Jan;18(1):23-9. doi: 10.1007/s10140-010-0899-2. Epub 2010 Aug 25.

Abstract

International teleradiology services (ITS) to the United States are based on the principle of deploying American board-certified radiologists across global time zones to optimally distribute the workload. While errors may be reduced by circumventing the traditional night call, there is limited evidence on the actual error rates of teleradiology groups. We have a comprehensive quality assurance (QA) process in our practice, which includes a review of discrepancies between preliminary reports and the final reports by the on-site radiologists. We analyzed the discrepancy QA data to determine the error rates. Archived QA data for 126,449 cases over a period of 1 year (2008) were analyzed for the discrepancy rate, nature of errors, and possible contributory factors. The scores ranged from 0 (no error) to 5 (clinically significant in the acute setting) based on the level of clinical significance. A novel modified Lorenz plot was used to estimate the degree of underreporting and to estimate the true error rate. An internal review of 200 cases was performed to validate the findings. Of the total, there was a total of 227 confirmed errors (0.18%, 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.20). Of these, the majority were levels 2 and 3 (minor error and error of long-term significance but not in the acute setting). Even after correction for underreporting, error rates were less than 1% for clinically significant errors. ITS is associated with very low rates of clinically significant errors. Due to limited feedback, particularly for minor errors, an internal review is important.

摘要

面向美国的国际远程放射学服务(ITS)基于在全球各时区部署获得美国执业资格认证的放射科医生,以优化工作量分配的原则。虽然通过规避传统的夜间值班可能会减少错误,但关于远程放射学团队实际错误率的证据有限。我们在业务中拥有全面的质量保证(QA)流程,其中包括由现场放射科医生对初步报告和最终报告之间的差异进行审查。我们分析了差异QA数据以确定错误率。对1年(2008年)内126,449例病例的存档QA数据进行了差异率、错误性质和可能的促成因素分析。根据临床意义水平,分数范围从0(无错误)到5(在急性情况下具有临床显著性)。使用一种新颖的改良洛伦兹图来估计漏报程度并估计真实错误率。对200例病例进行了内部审查以验证结果。在总数中,共有227例经确认的错误(0.18%,95%置信区间,0.16至0.20)。其中,大多数为2级和3级(小错误以及具有长期意义但非急性情况下的错误)。即使对漏报进行校正后,具有临床显著性的错误的错误率仍低于1%。ITS的临床显著性错误率非常低。由于反馈有限,特别是对于小错误,内部审查很重要。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验