Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology.

Maurer, Martin H.; Brönnimann, Michael; Schroeder, Christophe; Ghadamgahi, Ehssan; Streitparth, Florian; Heverhagen, Johannes T.; Leichtle, Alexander; de Bucourt, Maximilian; Meyl, Tobias Philipp (2021). Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology. RöFo. Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren, 193(2), pp. 160-167. Thieme 10.1055/a-1178-1113

[img] Text
Time_Maurer.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (319kB) | Request a copy

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the human resources required for a retrospective quality review of different percentages of all routine diagnostic procedures in the Department of Radiology at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three board-certified radiologists retrospectively evaluated the quality of the radiological reports of a total of 150 examinations (5 different examination types: abdominal CT, chest CT, mammography, conventional X-ray images and abdominal MRI). Each report was assigned a RADPEER score of 1 to 3 (score 1: concur with previous interpretation; score 2: discrepancy in interpretation/not ordinarily expected to be made; score 3: discrepancy in interpretation/should be made most of the time). The time (in seconds, s) required for each review was documented and compared. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to calculate the total workload for reviewing different percentages of the total annual reporting volume of the clinic.

RESULTS

Among the total of 450 reviews analyzed, 91.1 % (410/450) were assigned a score of 1 and 8.9 % (40/450) were assigned scores of 2 or 3. The average time (in seconds) required for a peer review was 60.4 s (min. 5 s, max. 245 s). The reviewer with the greatest clinical experience needed significantly less time for reviewing the reports than the two reviewers with less clinical expertise (p < 0.05). Average review times were longer for discrepant ratings with a score of 2 or 3 (p < 0.05). The total time requirement calculated for reviewing all 5 types of examination for one year would be more than 1200 working hours.

CONCLUSION

A retrospective peer review of reports of radiological examinations using the RADPEER system requires considerable human resources. However, to improve quality, it seems feasible to peer review at least a portion of the total yearly reporting volume.

KEY POINTS

· A systematic retrospective assessment of the content of radiological reports using the RADPEER system involves high personnel costs.. · The retrospective assessment of all reports of a clinic or practice seems unrealistic due to the lack of highly specialized personnel.. · At least part of all reports should be reviewed with the aim of improving the quality of reports..

CITATION FORMAT

· Maurer MH, Brönnimann M, Schroeder C et al. Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2020; DOI: 10.1055/a-1178-1113.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Haematology, Oncology, Infectious Diseases, Laboratory Medicine and Hospital Pharmacy (DOLS) > Institute of Clinical Chemistry
04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology and Nuclear Medicine (DRNN) > Institute of Diagnostic, Interventional and Paediatric Radiology

UniBE Contributor:

Maurer, Martin; Brönnimann, Michael; Schroeder, Christophe; Heverhagen, Johannes and Leichtle, Alexander Benedikt

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

1438-9029

Publisher:

Thieme

Language:

English

Submitter:

Maria de Fatima Henriques Bernardo

Date Deposited:

23 Jul 2020 10:00

Last Modified:

31 Jan 2021 01:31

Publisher DOI:

10.1055/a-1178-1113

PubMed ID:

32698235

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.145323

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/145323

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback