RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze report addenda to assess the self-reported error rate in radiologic study interpretation, the types of errors that occur, and the distribution of error by image modality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Addenda to all diagnostic radiology reports were compiled over a 1-year period (n = 5568). The overall error rate was based on addenda frequency relative to the total number of studies performed. Addenda written over the most recent 2-month interval (n = 851) were classified into five major categories of predominant error type: underreading, overreading, poor communication, insufficient history, and poor technique. Each category was further divided into multiple subtypes. RESULTS: Diagnostic studies at our hospital had an error rate of 0.8%. Errors of poor communication occurred most frequently (44%), followed by underreading (7%), insufficient history (21%), overreading (8%), and poor technique (1%). Analyzed by imaging modality, most errors occurred in PET (19.45 per 1000 studies), followed by MRI (13.86 per 1000 studies) and CT (12.45 per 1000 studies). CONCLUSION: Through the use of report addenda to calculate error, discrepancy between individual radiologists is removed in a reproducible and widely applicable way. This approach to error typology eliminates sample bias and in a departure from previous analyses of difficult cases shows that errors of communication are most frequent, representing a clear area for targeted improvement.
