Work overload and diagnostic errors in radiology.

PURPOSE: To determine the association between workload and diagnostic errors on clinical CT scans. METHOD: This retrospective study was performed at a tertiary care center and covered the period from January 2020 to March 2023. All clinical CT scans that contained an addendum describing a perceptual error (i.e. failure to detect an important abnormality) in the original report that was issued on office days between 7.30 a.m. and 18.00 p.m., were included. The workload of the involved radiologist on the day of the diagnostic error was calculated in terms of relative value units, and normalized for the known average daily production of each individual radiologist (workloadnormalized). A workloadnormalized of less than 100% indicates relative work underload, while a workloadnormalized of > 100% indicates relative work overload in terms of reported examinations on an individual radiologist's basis. RESULTS: A total of 49 diagnostic errors were included. Top-five locations of diagnostic errors were lung (n = 8), bone (n = 8), lymph nodes (n = 5), peritoneum (n = 5), and liver (n = 4). Workloadnormalized on the days the diagnostic errors were made was on average 121% (95% confidence interval: 106% to 136%), which was significantly higher than 100% (P = 0.008). There was no significant upward monotonic trend in diagnostic errors over the course of the day (Mann-Kendall tau of 0.005, P = 1.000), and there were no other notable temporal trends either. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists appear to have a relative work overload when they make a diagnostic error on CT. Diagnostic errors occurred throughout the entire day, without any increase towards the end of the day.

Requests for radiologic imaging: Prevalence and determinants of inadequate quality according to RI-RADS.

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence and determinants of radiologic imaging requests that are of inadequate quality according to the Reason for exam Imaging Reporting and Data System (RI-RADS). METHODS: This study included a random sample of 673 radiologic examinations performed at a tertiary care center. The quality of each imaging request was graded according to RI-RADS. Ordinal regression analysis was performed to determine the association of RI-RADS grade with patient age, gender, and hospital status, indication for imaging, requesting specialty, imaging modality, body region, time of examination, and relationship with previous imaging within the past one year. RESULTS: RI-RADS grades A (adequate request), B (barely adequate request), C (considerably limited request), and D (deficient request) were assigned to 159 (23.6 %), 166 (24.7 %), 214 (31.8 %), and 134 (19.9 %) of cases, respectively. Indication for imaging, requesting specialty, and body region were independently significantly associated with RI-RADS grades. Specifically, routine preoperative imaging (odds ratio [OR]: 3.422, P = 0.030) and transplantation imaging requests (OR: 8.710, P = 0.000) had a higher risk of poorer RI-RADS grades, whereas infection/inflammation as indication for imaging (OR: 0.411, P = 0.002), pediatrics as requesting specialty (OR: 0.400, P = 0.007), and head (OR: 0.384, P = 0.017), spine (OR: 0.346, P = 0.016), and upper extremity (OR: 0.208, P = 0.000) as body regions had a lower risk of poorer RI-RADS grades. CONCLUSION: The quality of radiologic imaging requests is inadequate in >75 % of cases, and is affected by several factors. The data from this study can be used as a baseline and benchmark for further investigation and improvement.