• Mark McCarron, Carrie Wade, Peter Flynn, and Ferghal McVerry.
• Altnagelvin Hospital, Derry, UK markmccarron@doctors.org.uk.
• Clin Med (Lond). 2018 Jun 1; 18 (3): 206211206-211.

AbstractNeuroradiologists provide quality-assured neuroimaging -reports. We developed the use of a neuroimaging team meeting to provide second-opinion reporting by neuroradiologists on neuroimaging that had previously been reported by general -radiologists. Neuroimaging from selected patients was reviewed at the meeting. Where there were discrepancies between an original report from a general radiologist and the report obtained from the meeting involving a neuroradiologist, we classified the discrepancies, recorded the scan modality -involved and used the data to assess temporal trends in discrepancy rates. Over 4 years, 562 patients (312 women, 250 men, mean age 50.6 [SD 17.3] years) were studied. Agreement occurred for 396 (70.5%) patients. Discrepancies that were not clinically important occurred for 60 (10.7%) patients. Clinically important discrepancies were found for 106 (18.9%) patients: missed lesions for 47 (8.3%) patients and misinterpretations for 59 (10.5%) patients. Cerebrovascular disease was the most common reason for a recommendation of neuroimaging review at a meeting. Scan modality did not influence the frequency of discrepancies. Discrepancy rates decreased with time (chi-squared test for linear trend p=0.015), while the frequency of neuroradiologists' recommendations for new investigations was stable at one in seven patients. Neuroimaging team meetings can facilitate improvements in neurology diagnoses.© Royal College of Physicians 2018. All rights reserved.

25 keywords...

hide…