Elsevier

Clinical Radiology

Volume 56, Issue 12, December 2001, Pages 938-946
Clinical Radiology

Review
Error in Radiology

https://doi.org/10.1053/crad.2001.0858Get rights and content

Abstract

Literature review indicates high levels of error within radiology. The aetiology of radiological error is multi-factorial. While individuals have a duty to progressively improve their performance, the experience of safety cultures in other high-risk human activities has shown that a system approach of root cause analysis is the method required to reduce error significantly. FitzGerald, R. (2001). Clinical Radiology56, 938–946.

References (87)

  • L Dalla Palma et al.

    Relationships between radiologists and clinicians: results from three surveys

    Clin Radiol

    (2000)
  • J Graham et al.

    Job stress and satisfaction among clinical radiologists

    Clin Radiol

    (2000)
  • An Organisation with a Memory: Report of an Expert Group on Learning from Adverse Events in the NHS

    (2000)
  • Building a Safer NHS for Patients

    (2001)
  • C Vincent et al.

    Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review

    Br Med J

    (2001)
  • JL Reinersten

    Let's talk about error

    Br Med J

    (2000)
  • LT Kohn et al.

    Executive summary

    To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System

    (2000)
  • An Organisation with a Memory

    (2000)
  • J Reason

    Human error: models and management

    Br Med J

    (2000)
  • An Organisation with a Memory: Report of an Expert Group on Learning from Adverse Events in the NHS

    (2000)
  • P JA Robinson

    Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Roentgen image

    Br J Radiol

    (1997)
  • DL Renfrew et al.

    Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference

    Radiology

    (1992)
  • RJ Brenner et al.

    Radiology and medical malpractice claims: a report of the practice standards claims survey of the Physician Insurers Association of America and the American College of Radiology

    Am J Roentgenol

    (1998)
  • The Use of Computed Tomography in the Initial Investigation of Common Malignancies

    (1994)
  • RM Gore et al.

    Helical CT in the evaluation of the acute abdomen

    Am J Roentgenol

    (2000)
  • CL Kalbhen et al.

    Assessing the resectability of pancreatic carcinoma: the value of reinterpreting abdominal CT performed at other institutions

    Am J Roentgenol

    (1998)
  • M Nino-Murcia et al.

    Multi-detector CT of the pancreas and bile duct system: value of curved planar reformations

    Am J Roentgenol

    (2001)
  • P JA Robinson et al.

    Variation between experienced observers in the interpretation of accident and emergency radiographs

    Br J Radiol

    (1999)
  • JA Levine et al.

    Ureteral calculi in patients with flank pain: correlation of plain radiography with unenhanced helical CT

    Radiology

    (1997)
  • CJ Wakeley et al.

    Audit of the value of double reading magnetic resonance imaging films

    Br J Radiol

    (1995)
  • CJ Ashman et al.

    Satisfaction of search in osteo-radiology

    Am J Roentgenol

    (2000)
  • Response to the General Medical Council Determination on the Bristol Case

    (October 1998)
  • L Berlin

    Emerging technologies

    Am J Roentgenol

    (1999)
  • L Berlin

    Possessing ordinary knowledge

    Am J Roentgenol

    (1996)
  • L Berlin et al.

    Radiation therapy of suspected brain tumour without definitive diagnosis

    Am J Roentgenol

    (1999)
  • MS Ginsberg et al.

    Pulmonary nodules resected at video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: etiology in 426 patients

    Radiology

    (1999)
  • LH Schwartz et al.

    Prevalence and importance of small hepatic lesions found at CT in patients with cancer

    Radiology

    (1999)
  • MV Gosselin et al.

    Unsuspected pulmonary embolism: prospective detection on routine helical CT scans

    Radiology

    (1998)
  • NC Yue et al.

    Clinically serious abnormalities found incidentally at MR imaging of the brain: data from the Cardiovascular Health Study

    Radiology

    (1997)
  • M YM Chen et al.

    Is it necessary to biopsy the obvious?

    Am J Roentgenol

    (2000)
  • BP Wood

    Decision making in radiology

    Radiology

    (1999)
  • EJ Potchen et al.

    Measuring performance in chest radiography

    Radiology

    (2000)
  • L Berlin

    Pitfalls of the vague radiology report

    Am J Roentgenol

    (2000)
  • Cited by (188)

    • Impact of Shift Volume on Neuroradiology Diagnostic Errors at a Large Tertiary Academic Center

      2023, Academic Radiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Oculomotor fatigue tends to be present at the end of a shift, and it could be a potential cause of making errors later in a day or on a busy workday (35–37). Our proportion of perceptual errors (83%) and clinically significant errors (91.1%) is at the upper end of the range that is reported in the literature (5,11,22,34,38–44). There are many variables that predispose to radiologic errors, including type I heuristic thinking (fast quick thinking), cognitive biases (e.g., availability bias, framing bias, satisfaction of search bias), systematic errors (e.g., workplace interruptions, understaffing, software failure), longer shift length, and increased shift volume (34,38,39,45).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    f1

    Author for correspondence: R. FitzGerald, Department of Radiology, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton WV10 OQP, U.K. Fax: +44(0)1902 644820.

    View full text