Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
James A Espinosa a Department of
Emergency Medicine, Overlook Hospital, Atlantic Health System, 99 Beauvoir Avenue, Summit, NJ 07902, USA, b Associates in Process Improvement,
1110 Bonifant Street, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
Correspondence to: J A Espinosa
jim010{at}aol.com
Objectives:
To reduce errors made in the
interpretation of radiographs in an emergency department.
Design:
Longitudinal study.
Setting:
Hospital emergency department.
Interventions:
All staff reviewed all clinically
significant discrepancies at monthly meetings. A file of clinically
significant errors was created; the file was used for teaching. Later a
team redesigned the process. A system was developed for interpreting radiographs that would be followed regardless of the day of the week or
time of day. All standard radiographs were brought directly to the
emergency physician for immediate interpretation. Radiologists reviewed
the films within 12 hours as a quality control measure, and if a
significant misinterpretation was found patients were asked to return.
Main outcome measures:
Reduction in number of
clinically significant errors (such as missed fractures or foreign
bodies) on radiographs read in the emergency department. Data on the
error rate for radiologists and the effect of the recall procedure were
not available so reliability modelling was used to assess the effect of
these on overall safety.
Results:
After the initial improvements the rate of false negative errors fell from 3% (95% confidence interval
2.8% to 3.2%) to 1.2% (1.03% to 1.37%). After the processes were
redesigned it fell further to 0.3% (0.26% to 0.34%).
Reliability modelling showed that the number of potential adverse
effects per 1000 cases fell from 19 before the improvements to 3 afterwards and unmitigated adverse effects fell from 2.2/1000 before to
0.16/1000 afterwards, assuming 95% success in calling patients back.
Conclusion:
Systems of radiograph interpretation that optimise the skills of all clinicians involved and contain reliable processes for mitigating errors can reduce error rates substantially.
Read all Rapid Responses