Do Long Radiology Workdays Affect Nodule Detection in Dynamic CT Interpretation?

Department of Radiology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA.
Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR (Impact Factor: 2.84). 03/2012; 9(3):191-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2011.11.013
Source: PubMed


A previous study demonstrated decreased diagnostic accuracy for finding fractures and decreased ability to focus on skeletal radiographs after a long working day. Skeletal radiographic examinations commonly have images that are displayed statically. The aim of this study was to investigate whether diagnostic accuracy for detecting pulmonary nodules on CT of the chest displayed dynamically would be similarly affected by fatigue.
Twenty-two radiologists and 22 residents were given 2 tests searching CT chest sequences for a solitary pulmonary nodule before and after a day of clinical reading. To measure search time, 10 lung CT sequences, each containing 20 consecutive sections and a single nodule, were inspected using free search and navigation. To measure diagnostic accuracy, 100 CT sequences, each with 20 sections and half with nodules, were displayed at preset scrolling speed and duration. Accuracy was measured using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Visual strain was measured via dark vergence, an indicator of the ability to keep the eyes focused on the display.
Diagnostic accuracy was reduced after a day of clinical reading (P = .0246), but search time was not affected (P > .05). After a day of reading, dark vergence was significantly larger and more variable (P = .0098), reflecting higher levels of visual strain, and subjective ratings of fatigue were also higher.
After their usual workday, radiologists experience increased fatigue and decreased diagnostic accuracy for detecting pulmonary nodules on CT. Effects of fatigue may be mitigated by active interaction with the display.

Download full-text


Available from: Kevin S Berbaum,
  • Source

    Journal of Digital Imaging 11/2011; 25(3):319-24. DOI:10.1007/s10278-011-9439-1 · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The adequate and repeatable performance of the image display system is a key element of information technology platforms in a modern radiology department. However, despite the wide availability of high-end computing platforms and advanced color and gray-scale monitors, the quality and properties of the final displayed medical image may often be inadequate for diagnostic purposes if the displays are not configured and maintained properly. In this article-an expanded version of the Radiological Society of North America educational module "Image Display"-the authors discuss fundamentals of image display hardware, quality control and quality assurance processes for optimal image interpretation settings, and parameters of the viewing environment that influence reader performance. Radiologists, medical physicists, and other allied professionals should strive to understand the role of display technology and proper usage for a quality radiology practice. The display settings and display quality control and quality assurance processes described in this article can help ensure high standards of perceived image quality and image interpretation accuracy.
    Radiographics 01/2013; 33(1):275-90. DOI:10.1148/rg.331125096 · 2.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine if the rate of major discrepancies between resident preliminary reports and faculty final reports increases during the final hours of consecutive 12-hour overnight call shifts. Institutional review board exemption status was obtained for this study. All overnight radiology reports interpreted by residents on-call between January 2010 and June 2010 were reviewed by board-certified faculty and categorized as major discrepancies if they contained a change in interpretation with the potential to impact patient management or outcome. Initial determination of a major discrepancy was at the discretion of individual faculty radiologists based on this general definition. Studies categorized as major discrepancies were secondarily reviewed by the residency program director (M.H.S.) to ensure consistent application of the major discrepancy designation. Multiple variables associated with each report were collected and analyzed, including the time of preliminary interpretation, time into shift study was interpreted, volume of studies interpreted during each shift, day of the week, patient location (inpatient or emergency department), block of shift (2-hour blocks for 12-hour shifts), imaging modality, patient age and gender, resident identification, and faculty identification. Univariate risk factor analysis was performed to determine the optimal data format of each variable (ie, continuous versus categorical). A multivariate logistic regression model was then constructed to account for confounding between variables and identify independent risk factors for major discrepancies. We analyzed 8062 preliminary resident reports with 79 major discrepancies (1.0%). There was a statistically significant increase in major discrepancy rate during the final 2 hours of consecutive 12-hour call shifts. Multivariate analysis confirmed that interpretation during the last 2 hours of 12-hour call shifts (odds ratio (OR) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-3.21), cross-sectional imaging modality (OR 5.38, 95% CI 3.22-8.98), and inpatient location (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.02-3.20) were independent risk factors for major discrepancy. In a single academic medical center, major discrepancies in resident preliminary reports increased significantly during the final 2 hours of consecutive 12-hour overnight call shifts. This finding could be related to either fatigue or circadian desynchronization. Discrimination of these two potential etiologies requires additional investigation as major discrepancies in resident reports have the potential to negatively impact patient care/outcome. Cross-sectional imaging modalities including computed tomography and ultrasound (versus conventional radiography), as well as inpatient location (versus Emergency Department location), were also associated with significantly higher major discrepancy rates.
    Academic radiology 03/2013; 20(3):305-11. DOI:10.1016/j.acra.2012.09.028 · 1.75 Impact Factor
Show more