Patient-Centered Care

Fundamentals of Diagnostic Error in Imaging

Published Online:Oct 10 2018https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018180021

Abstract

Implementing processes to learn from diagnostic error is key to reducing errors.

Imaging plays a pivotal role in the diagnostic process for many patients. With estimates of average diagnostic error rates ranging from 3% to 5%, there are approximately 40 million diagnostic errors involving imaging annually worldwide. The potential to improve diagnostic performance and reduce patient harm by identifying and learning from these errors is substantial. Yet these relatively high diagnostic error rates have persisted in our field despite decades of research and interventions. It may often seem as if diagnostic errors in radiology occur in a haphazard fashion. However, diagnostic problem solving in radiology is not a mysterious black box, and diagnostic errors are not random occurrences. Rather, diagnostic errors are predictable events with readily identifiable contributing factors, many of which are driven by how we think or related to the external environment. These contributing factors lead to both perceptual and interpretive errors. Identifying contributing factors is one of the keys to developing interventions that reduce or mitigate diagnostic errors. Developing a comprehensive process to identify diagnostic errors, analyze them to discover contributing factors and biases, and develop interventions based on the contributing factors is fundamental to learning from diagnostic error. Coupled with effective peer learning practices, supportive leadership, and a culture of quality, this process can unquestionably result in fewer diagnostic errors, improved patient outcomes, and increased satisfaction for all stakeholders. This article provides the foundational elements for implementing this type of process at a radiology practice, with examples to help radiologists and practice leaders achieve meaningful practice improvement.

^©RSNA, 2018

References

1. Singh H, Meyer AN, Thomas EJ. The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large observational studies involving US adult populations. BMJ Qual Saf 2014;23(9):727–731.
Medline Google Scholar
2. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000; 312.
Google Scholar
3. Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology: perceptual errors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167(3):587–590.
Medline Google Scholar
4. Busby LP, Courtier JL, Glastonbury CM. Bias in radiology: the how and why of misses and misinterpretations. RadioGraphics 2018;38(1):236–247.
Google Scholar
5. National Quality Forum. Improving diagnostic quality and safety. https://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2017/09/Improving_Diagnostic_Quality_and_Safety_Final_Report.aspx. Published 2017. Accessed January 30, 2018.
Google Scholar
6. Fitzgerald R. Error in radiology. Clin Radiol 2001;56 (12):938–946.
Medline Google Scholar
7. Balogh E, Miller BT, Ball J; Institute of Medicine; U.S. Committee on Diagnostic Error in Health Care. Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2015.
Google Scholar
8. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000; 287.
Google Scholar
9. Larson DB, Kruskal JB, Krecke KN, Donnelly LF. Key concepts of patient safety in radiology. RadioGraphics 2015; 35(6):1677–1693.
Google Scholar
10. Reason J. Perceptions of unsafe acts. In: The human contribution. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2008; 69–106.
Google Scholar
11. Croskerry P. Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications of a dual process model of reasoning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2009;14(suppl 1):27–35.
Medline Google Scholar
12. Lee CS, Nagy PG, Weaver SJ, Newman-Toker DE. Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201(3):611–617.
Medline Google Scholar
13. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974;185(4157):1124–1131.
Medline Google Scholar
14. Waite S, Scott J, Gale B, Fuchs T, Kolla S, Reede D. Interpretive error in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;208(4): 739–749.
Medline Google Scholar
15. Itri JN, Patel SH. Heuristics and cognitive error in medical imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018 Mar 12:1–9 [Epub ahead of print].
Medline Google Scholar
16. Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med 2005;165(13):1493–1499.
Medline Google Scholar
17. Abujudeh HH, Boland GW, Kaewlai R, et al. Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. Eur Radiol 2010;20(8):1952–1957.
Medline Google Scholar
18. Gunderman RB. Biases in radiologic reasoning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(3):561–564.
Medline Google Scholar
19. Patel SH, Ambrosino MM, McGuinness G. The challenging case conference: initial observations and feedback. J Am Coll Radiol 2012;9(9):666–668.
Medline Google Scholar
20. Donald JJ, Barnard SA. Common patterns in 558 diagnostic radiology errors. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2012;56(2): 173–178.
Medline Google Scholar
21. Brady A, Laoide RO, McCarthy P, McDermott R. Discrepancy and error in radiology: concepts, causes and consequences. Ulster Med J 2012;81(1):3–9.
Medline Google Scholar
22. Brady AP. Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? Insights Imaging 2017;8(1):171–182.
Medline Google Scholar
23. Gunderman RB, Burdick EJ. Error and opportunity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(4):901–903.
Medline Google Scholar
24. Renfrew DL, Franken EA Jr, Berbaum KS, Weigelt FH, Abu-Yousef MM. Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference. Radiology 1992;183(1):145–150.
Google Scholar
25. Tudor GR, Finlay DB. Error review: can this improve reporting performance? Clin Radiol 2001;56(9):751–754.
Medline Google Scholar
26. Kim YW, Mansfield LT. Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202(3):465–470.
Medline Google Scholar
27. Swischuk LE, Hernandez JA. Frequently missed fractures in children (value of comparative views). Emerg Radiol 2004; 11(1):22–28.
Medline Google Scholar
28. Berlin L. Hindsight bias. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175(3): 597–601.
Medline Google Scholar
29. Roese NJ, Vohs KD. Hindsight bias. Perspect Psychol Sci 2012;7(5):411–426.
Medline Google Scholar
30. Bechtold RE, Chen MY, Ott DJ, et al. Interpretation of abdominal CT: analysis of errors and their causes. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997;21(5):681–685.
Medline Google Scholar
31. Pinto A, Acampora C, Pinto F, Kourdioukova E, Romano L, Verstraete K. Learning from diagnostic errors: a good way to improve education in radiology. Eur J Radiol 2011;78(3): 372–376.
Medline Google Scholar
32. Moriarity AK, Hawkins CM, Geis JR, et al. Meaningful peer review in radiology: a review of current practices and potential future directions. J Am Coll Radiol 2016;13(12 Pt A):1519–1524.
Medline Google Scholar
33. Siewert B, Sosna J, McNamara A, Raptopoulos V, Kruskal JB. Missed lesions at abdominal oncologic CT: lessons learned from quality assurance. RadioGraphics 2008;28(3):623–638.
Google Scholar
34. Larson DB, Donnelly LF, Podberesky DJ, Merrow AC, Sharpe RE Jr, Kruskal JB. Peer feedback, learning, and improvement: answering the call of the Institute of Medicine report on diagnostic error. Radiology 2017;283(1):231–241.
Medline Google Scholar
35. Brook OR, O’Connell AM, Thornton E, Eisenberg RL, Mendiratta-Lala M, Kruskal JB. Quality initiatives: anatomy and pathophysiology of errors occurring in clinical radiology practice. RadioGraphics 2010;30(5):1401–1410.
Google Scholar
36. Bahrami S, Yim CM. Quality initiatives: blind spots at brain imaging. RadioGraphics 2009;29(7):1877–1896.
Google Scholar
37. FitzGerald R. Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking. Eur Radiol 2005;15 (8):1760–1767.
Medline Google Scholar
38. Lauritzen PM, Andersen JG, Stokke MV, et al. Radiologist-initiated double reading of abdominal CT: retrospective analysis of the clinical importance of changes to radiology reports. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25(8):595–603.
Medline Google Scholar
39. Lee CS, Kadom N, Nagy P. Reducing errors from cognitive biases through quality improvement projects. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14(6):852–853.
Medline Google Scholar
40. Larson DB, Nance JJ. Rethinking peer review: what aviation can teach radiology about performance improvement. Radiology 2011;259(3):626–632.
Google Scholar
41. Wheeler PS. Risk prevention, quality assurance, and the missed diagnosis conference. Radiology 1982;145(1):227–228.
Medline Google Scholar
42. Brook OR, Kruskal JB, Eisenberg RL, Larson DB. Root cause analysis: learning from adverse safety events. RadioGraphics 2015;35(6):1655–1667.
Google Scholar
43. Kabadi SJ, Krishnaraj A. Strategies for improving the value of the radiology report: a retrospective analysis of errors in formally over-read studies. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14(4): 459–466.
Medline Google Scholar
44. Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH. Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. RadioGraphics 2015;35(6):1668–1676.
Google Scholar
45. Itri JN, Kang HC, Krishnan S, Nathan D, Scanlon MH. Using focused missed-case conferences to reduce discrepancies in musculoskeletal studies interpreted by residents on call. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197(4):W696–W705.
Medline Google Scholar
46. Donithan A, Krishnaraj A, Itri JN. Random versus non-random: a case for more meaningful peer review. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/NOINDEX/Abstracts/2017/17148_Donithan.pdf?la=en. Published 2017. Accessed January 30, 2018.
Google Scholar
47. Epstein S, McEachern R, Khot R, Padia S, Patrie JT, Itri JN. Papillary thyroid carcinoma recurrence: low yield of neck ultrasound with an undetectable serum thyroglobulin level. J Ultrasound Med 2018 Mar 2. [Epub ahead of print].
Google Scholar
48. Jordan MJ, Lightfoote JB, Jordan JE. Quality outcomes of reinterpretation of brain CT imaging studies by subspecialty experts in neuroradiology. J Natl Med Assoc 2006;98(8): 1326–1328.
Medline Google Scholar
49. Loevner LA, Sonners AI, Schulman BJ, et al. Reinterpretation of cross-sectional images in patients with head and neck cancer in the setting of a multidisciplinary cancer center. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23(10):1622–1626.
Medline Google Scholar
50. Zan E, Yousem DM, Carone M, Lewin JS. Second-opinion consultations in neuroradiology. Radiology 2010;255(1): 135–141.
Medline Google Scholar
51. Ruutiainen AT, Durand DJ, Scanlon MH, Itri JN. Increased error rates in preliminary reports issued by radiology residents working more than 10 consecutive hours overnight. Acad Radiol 2013;20(3):305–311.
Medline Google Scholar
52. Nagy P, Warnock M, Daly M, Rehm J, Ehlers K. Radtracker: a web-based open-source issue tracking tool. J Digit Imaging 2002;15(suppl 1):114–119.
Medline Google Scholar
53. Leape LL. Errors in medicine. Clin Chim Acta 2009;404(1): 2–5.
Medline Google Scholar
54. Zygmont ME, Itri JN, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Radiology research in quality and safety: current trends and future needs. Acad Radiol 2017;24(3):263–272.
Medline Google Scholar
55. Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology: alliterative errors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174(4):925–931.
Medline Google Scholar
56. Lauritzen PM, Stavem K, Andersen JG, et al. Double reading of current chest CT examinations: clinical importance of changes to radiology reports. Eur J Radiol 2016;85(1): 199–204.
Medline Google Scholar
57. Canon CL, Smith JK, Morgan DE, et al. Double reading of barium enemas: is it necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181(6):1607–1610.
Medline Google Scholar
58. Wormanns D, Ludwig K, Beyer F, Heindel W, Diederich S. Detection of pulmonary nodules at multirow-detector CT: effectiveness of double reading to improve sensitivity at standard-dose and low-dose chest CT. Eur Radiol 2005;15(1):14–22.
Medline Google Scholar
59. Quekel LG, Goei R, Kessels AG, van Engelshoven JM. Detection of lung cancer on the chest radiograph: impact of previous films, clinical information, double reading, and dual reading. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54(11):1146–1150.
Medline Google Scholar
60. Wang Y, van Klaveren RJ, de Bock GH, et al. No benefit for consensus double reading at baseline screening for lung cancer with the use of semiautomated volumetry software. Radiology 2012;262(1):320–326.
Medline Google Scholar
61. Trimboli RM, Verardi N, Cartia F, Carbonaro LA, Sardanelli F. Breast cancer detection using double reading of unenhanced MRI including T1-weighted, T2-weighted STIR, and diffusion-weighted imaging: a proof of concept study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203(3):674–681.
Medline Google Scholar
62. Houssami N, Macaskill P, Bernardi D, et al. Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading: evidence to guide future screening strategies. Eur J Cancer 2014;50(10):1799–1807.
Medline Google Scholar
63. Posso M, Carles M, Rué M, Puig T, Bonfill X. Cost-effectiveness of double reading versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme. PLoS One 2016;11(7):e0159806.
Medline Google Scholar
64. Posso M, Puig T, Carles M, Rué M, Canelo-Aybar C, Bonfill X. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 2017;96:40–49.
Medline Google Scholar
65. Chartrand G, Cheng PM, Vorontsov E, et al. Deep learning: a primer for radiologists. RadioGraphics 2017;37(7): 2113–2131.
Google Scholar

Article History

Received: Feb 16 2018
Accepted: Mar 28 2018
Published online: Oct 10 2018
Published in print: Oct 2018

Vol. 38, No. 6

Podcast

Abbreviations

Abbreviations:
EMR	electronic medical record
HCC	hepatocellular carcinoma
MCC	missed case conference
PACS	picture archiving and communication system
PLC	peer learning conference

Metrics

Altmetric Score

PDF download