背景:许多研究探索了与神经放射学诊断错误相关的因素;然而,缺乏大规模的多变量分析。目的:评估口译时间的相关性,移位量,护理设置,星期几,以及在大型学术医学中心接受神经放射学家诊断错误的培训。方法:这项回顾性病例对照研究使用大型三级护理学术医学中心的神经放射学质量保证数据库评估了神经放射科医生分配了RADPEER评分的CT和MRI检查。从2014年1月至2020年3月,在数据库中搜索了没有(RADPEER评分1)或具有(RADPEER评分2a,2b,3a,3b,或4)诊断错误。对于每个有错误的检查,随机选择了两次没有错误的检查(除非只能识别一次检查),与解释放射科医生和检查类型相匹配,形成案例和控制组,分别。边际混合效应逻辑回归模型用于评估诊断错误与解释时间(自上一份报告完成后的分钟数)的关联。班次量(班次期间解释的检查次数),急诊/住院设置,周末口译,以及受训人员参与口译。结果:病例组包括564例患者中的564例检查(平均年龄,50.0±25.0岁;309名男性,255名女性);对照组包括1019名患者的1019次检查(平均年龄,52.5±23.2岁;540名男性,479名妇女)。与对照组相比,平均解释时间分别为16.3±17.2和14.8±16.7分钟;平均移位量分别为50.0±22.1和45.4±22.9次检查.在单变量模型中,诊断错误与移位量(OR=1.22,p<.001)和周末解释(OR=1.60,p<.001)有关,但不是解释时间,急诊/住院设置,或受训人员参与(p>.05)。然而,在多变量模型中,诊断错误与解释时间独立相关(OR=1.18,p=0.003),移位量(OR=1.27,p<.001),和周末解释(OR=1.69,p=0.02)。在子分析中,诊断错误在工作日与解释时间(OR=1.18,p=.003)和移位量(OR=1.27,p<.001)独立相关;周末未观察到此类关联(解释时间:p=.62;移位量:p=.58).结论:神经放射学的诊断错误与更长的解释时间有关,更高的移位量,周末解说临床影响:在设计与工作流程相关的干预措施以减少神经放射学解释错误时,应考虑这些发现。
BACKGROUND. Numerous studies have explored factors associated with diagnostic errors in neuroradiology; however, large-scale multivariable analyses are lacking. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate associations of interpretation time, shift volume, care setting, day of week, and trainee participation with diagnostic errors by neuroradiologists at a large academic medical center. METHODS. This retrospective
case-control study using a large tertiary-care academic medical center\'s neuroradiology quality assurance database evaluated CT and MRI examinations for which neuroradiologists had assigned RADPEER scores. The database was searched from January 2014 through March 2020 for examinations without (RADPEER score of 1) or with (RADPEER scores of 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, or 4) diagnostic error. For each examination with error, two examinations without error were randomly selected (unless only one examination could be identified) and matched by interpreting radiologist and examination type to form
case and control groups. Marginal mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to assess associations of diagnostic error with interpretation time (number of minutes since the immediately preceding report\'s completion), shift volume (number of examinations interpreted during the shift), emergency/inpatient setting, weekend interpretation, and trainee participation in interpretation. RESULTS. The
case group included 564 examinations in 564 patients (mean age, 50.0 ± 25.0 [SD] years; 309 men, 255 women); the control group included 1019 examinations in 1019 patients (mean age, 52.5 ± 23.2 years; 540 men, 479 women). In the
case versus control group, mean interpretation time was 16.3 ± 17.2 [SD] minutes versus 14.8 ± 16.7 minutes; mean shift volume was 50.0 ± 22.1 [SD] examinations versus 45.4 ± 22.9 examinations. In univariable models, diagnostic error was associated with shift volume (OR = 1.22, p < .001) and weekend interpretation (OR = 1.60, p < .001) but not interpretation time, emergency/inpatient setting, or trainee participation (p > .05). However, in multivariable models, diagnostic error was independently associated with interpretation time (OR = 1.18, p = .003), shift volume (OR = 1.27, p < .001), and weekend interpretation (OR = 1.69, p = .02). In subanalysis, diagnostic error showed independent associations on weekdays with interpretation time (OR = 1.18, p = .003) and shift volume (OR = 1.27, p < .001); such associations were not observed on weekends (interpretation time: p = .62; shift volume: p = .58). CONCLUSION. Diagnostic errors in neuroradiology were associated with longer interpretation times, higher shift volumes, and weekend interpretation. CLINICAL IMPACT. These findings should be considered when designing work-flow-related interventions seeking to reduce neuroradiology interpretation errors.