Radiology Residency Match: The Cost of Being in the Dark.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The Electronic Resident Application Service (ERAS) publishes monthly statistics before the match and the National Resident Matching Program publishes the match outcomes. We sought to determine whether early ERAS data influences applicant behavior and correlates with match outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the 2007-2017 ERAS archives for the applicant pool size (PS), the average number of applications per program (AP), and the average number of applications per applicant (AA) in November, before radiology match, and the 2007-2017 National Resident Matching Program archives for the average number of ranked applicants needed to fill each position (ANRA) and the number of unfilled positions (UP) in radiology match. Correlation coefficients were calculated for each pair. RESULTS: PS correlated very strongly with AP (r = 0.80, p = 0.001708), UP (r = -0.92, p = 0.000063) and ANRA (r = -0.90, p = 0.000164). UP correlated strongly with ANRA (r = 0.76, p = 0.006349) and AP (r = -0.77, p = 0.005339). A trend to moderate correlation between AP and ANRA (r = 0.58, p = 0.062686) and AA (r = 0.53, p = 0.074395) did not reach statistical significance. There was no correlation between AA and PS in the same (r = -0.05, p = 0.878585) or the following year (r = 0.35, p = 0.297166), and AA and UP in the same (r = 0.13, p = 0.701983) or the following year (r = 0.32, p = 0.336136). CONCLUSION: The real-time data reported by ERAS in November, before match, is a predictor of radiology match outcomes and can be used by all participants to limit their application and recruitment costs. Medical students applying to radiology do not consider either the real-time or historic data when submitting ERAS applications.

The Effect of Faster Reporting Speed for Imaging Studies on the Number of Misses and Interpretation Errors: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine if increasing radiologist reading speed results in more misses and interpretation errors. METHODS: We selected a sample set of 53 abdomen-pelvis CT scans of variable complexity performed at a teaching hospital during the study period. We classified the CT scans into 4 categories based on their level of difficulty, with level 4 representing the most-complex cases. Five attending radiologists participated in the study. We initially established an average baseline reporting time for each radiologist. Radiologists were randomly assigned a set of 12 studies, of varying complexity, to dictate at their normal speed, and a separate set of 12 studies, of similar complexity, to read at a speed that was twice as fast as their normal speed. The major and minor misses were recorded and analyzed. A χ(2) analysis was used to compare the results. RESULTS: Reading at the faster speed resulted in more major misses for 4 of the 5 radiologists. The total number of major misses for the 5 radiologists, when they reported at the faster speed, was 16 of 60 reported cases, versus 6 of 60 reported cases at normal speed; P = .032. The average interpretation error rate of major misses among the 5 radiologists reporting at the faster speed was 26.6%, compared with 10% at normal speed. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study found a significant positive correlation between faster reading speed and the number of major misses and interpretation errors.

Preliminary radiology resident interpretations versus final attending radiologist interpretations and the impact on patient care in a community hospital.

OBJECTIVE: At academic institutions, overnight emergency radiology examinations are interpreted by the on-call radiology resident and are reviewed by an attending radiologist in the morning. The objective of our study was to determine the rate of discrepancies between the two interpretations and the possible effect, if any, on patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The preliminary reports for 11,908 emergency diagnostic imaging examinations interpreted after hours by residents over a 3-year period (January 2002-January 2005) were reviewed retrospectively for any discrepancy with the attending radiologist's final interpretation. A discrepancy was noted if verbal notification of the ordering physician was required. The medical charts of the cases for which there was a major discrepancy between the two interpretations were reviewed. The discrepancies were categorized as to the effect on patient morbidity. The resident discrepancy rates were also compared with RADPEER data from our institution. RESULTS: The overall major discrepancy rate was 2.6%. This rate is comparable to RADPEER data, which found a misinterpretation rate of 2.1%. The technique most commonly involved in cases with discrepant interpretations was contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis, with the most common diagnosis related to acute appendicitis (total of 21 cases). The rate of discrepancy was highest for residents who were in their third year of training. The indications for these examinations varied; however, the effect on patient management was no significant effect in 92.8%, some negative effect in 6.9%, and significant negative effect in 0.3%. CONCLUSION: The results of this investigation highlight the minimal discrepancy rate that occurs with overnight resident coverage. Thus, there is no detrimental effect on the quality of patient care from relying on preliminary interpretations made by radiology residents.

Reducing medication errors in a surgical residency training program.

Medication errors contribute to in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Teaching hospitals and the surgical residency training programs they support should take proactive steps to reduce error frequency. In order to accomplish meaningful error reduction, we must first define the scope and nature of the problem. Pharmacists at the Monmouth Medical Center prospectively recorded medication prescribing errors made by surgical residents during 2 years. These data were reviewed to determine the types of medication errors made most frequently by surgical house officers. Seventy-five medication-prescribing errors were made by surgical house staff in the years 2001 and 2002. Thirty-three of these errors involved orders for antibiotic therapy. Errors that could not be directly attributed to knowledge deficits were responsible for 36 of the 75 errors (48%), whereas specific knowledge deficits were responsible for 39 of the 75 errors (52%). Twentyeight of the 36 errors not directly attributable to knowledge deficits (78%) were made at the postgraduate year one level, whereas only 15 of the 39 knowledge deficit errors (38%) were made at the postgraduate year one level. Though targeted education to address specific knowledge deficits may substantially reduce the occurrence of "knowledge deficit" medication errors within surgical residency training programs, more costly measures such as the implementation of physician computerized order entry will likely be needed to reduce maximally the frequency of medication ordering errors. Many prescribing errors cannot be attributed to specific knowledge deficits.