Every imaging facility should have a solid peer review system, and peer review data should be used in the careful development of quality metrics in radiology performance.
I recently visited Philadelphia, and while there, I came across some of Ben Franklin’s more famous quotations, including this well-known one: “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
I’ve relied on that notion many times as a radiologist. Why? Because to me we are in the most humbling of specialties. We all make errors and our errors are usually in plain evidence in perpetuity. So, I’ve been hesitant to be overly critical of others’ mistakes.
But lately I’ve started to think a lot more about that position. Isn’t that also an abdication of responsibility of quality in my profession? Specifically I’ve come across poor quality reports that have led to over-imaging (often read by non-radiologists) or incorrect treatment. While I’ve made my share of errors, I know about them because they are pointed out to me; and as a result, I am able to consider what I can do to improve.
But what about when someone orders their own test and reads it, or one of their partners reads it? Is there oversight for this? There’s no one else typically to feed back an “over-read” disagreement if you read your own stuff. Do those readers find out what mistakes they made? Moreover, are they challenged to improve and held to any standards for this? I think this is an area where health imaging is sorely lacking.
So it points out a few things:
First is the importance of peer review for all readers - and peer review with consequences. Every imaging facility needs to provide a system for peer review and to create a system that allows for verification of errors by second or more peer reviews. To me, there should be grading not only of accuracy, but clinical relevance. For those errors that are clinically relevant, and that are agreed upon by reviewers, there should be some form of education and redirection. For repeated errors, there should be mandatory CME or otherwise documentation of competency.
Second is the use of peer review data in the careful development of quality metrics in radiology performance. Such metrics would cover far more ground than just report accuracy, and include a variety of service errors, omissions or dysfunction, but should include elements of accuracy and report completeness. Metrics we are all aware of are things like turn-around-time, but can include far more than this, including safety data and regularity of fulfilling documentation requirements. Such metrics should emphatically be directed at items that improve the patient experience or safety.
We owe our patients this much. And we certainly can’t be critical of the quality of anyone else, if do not firs have our own house in order.
Leading Breast Radiologists Discuss the USPSTF Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations
May 17th 2024In recognition of National Women’s Health Week, Dana Bonaminio, MD, Amy Patel, MD, and Stacy Smith-Foley, MD, shared their thoughts and perspectives on the recently updated breast cancer screening recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
Multicenter CT Study Shows Benefits of Emerging Diagnostic Model for Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma
May 15th 2024Combining clinical and CT features, adjunctive use of a classification and regression tree (CART) diagnostic model demonstrated AUCs for detecting clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) that were 15 to 22 percent higher than unassisted radiologist assessments.
CT Study: AI Algorithm Comparable to Radiologists in Differentiating Small Renal Masses
May 14th 2024An emerging deep learning algorithm had a lower AUC and sensitivity than urological radiologists for differentiating between small renal masses on computed tomography (CT) scans but had a 21 percent higher sensitivity rate than non-urological radiologists, according to new research.