Peer Review in Radiology: How Can We Learn from Our Mistakes?

Scali, Elena P.; Harris, Alison; Martin, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.carj.2017.04.002

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Analyses of opinions regarding reviewer feedback on submission of articles indicated that, while most users agreed reviewer feedback was of good quality, there were widely varying opinions for each of the quality categories. These findings were consistent with multiple previous publications describing challenges inherent in both giving and receiving reviewer feedback . The general consensus from these publications was that the peer review process is imperfect and that neither the giver nor receiver enjoy the process.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

User opinions for the Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound journal differ among demographic groups

Jones

Lascano

2018

Vet Radiology Ultrasound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meeting the changing needs of journal users is important for veterinary editors. The objective of this prospective survey study was to analyze user opinions for the journal Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound. An online survey was developed based on a consensus among the journal's Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members, an industrial organizational psychologist, Executive Council members for the journal's owner organization, representatives of the journal's publisher, and members of the authors' University Institutional Review Board. The online survey link was sent via email to members of the journal's five represented organizations and responses were collected from January 2016 to June 2016. The survey response rate was 38.5% (478 survey responses received/1241 emails sent). Private practitioners were significantly more likely than academicians to consider the reviewer feedback to be accurate (U = 5855, P < 0.05). Respondents from North America were significantly more likely than Europeans to consider the reviewer feedback to be insightful (U = 6212, P < 0.05). A majority of respondents (75.1%) agreed or strongly agreed that the journal should change to a double-blinded peer review system, which has been implemented. Perceptions of quality and satisfaction with the journal were highly correlated to each other (r = 0.68, P < 0.01) and positively correlated with respondent age. Findings indicated that opinions of Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound users are diverse and differ among some demographic groups. These results may be used to guide future strategic planning to ensure that journal content and Editorial Board membership are representative of these diverse points of view.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

User opinions for the Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound journal differ among demographic groups

Jones

Lascano

2018

Vet Radiology Ultrasound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently published papers on the peer review experience identify important opportunities to create a non-punitive peer review system, truly focused on learning from the errors we all make [ 9 ]. It was mentioned that radiologists’ reporting performance cannot be perfect and some errors are inevitable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Telemedicine-based system for quality management and peer review in radiology

Morozov¹,

Guseva²,

Ледихова³

et al. 2018

Insights Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesQuality assurance is the key component of modern radiology. A telemedicine-based quality assurance system helps to overcome the “scoring” approach and makes the quality control more accessible and objective.MethodsA concept for quality assurance in radiology is developed. Its realization is a set of strategies, actions, and tools. The latter is based on telemedicine-based peer review of 23,199 computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images.ResultsThe conception of the system for quality management in radiology represents a chain of actions: “discrepancies evaluation – routine support – quality improvement activity – discrepancies evaluation”. It is realized by an audit methodology, telemedicine, elearning, and other technologies. After a year of systemic telemedicine-based peer reviews, the authors have estimated that clinically significant discrepancies were detected in 6% of all cases, while clinically insignificant ones were found in 19% of cases. Most often, problems appear in musculoskeletal records; 80% of the examinations have diagnostic or technical imperfections. The presence of routine telemedicine support and personalized elearning allowed improving the diagnostics quality. The level of discrepancies has decreased significantly (p < 0.05).ConclusionThe telemedicine-based peer review system allows improving radiology departments’ network effectiveness.Main Messages• “Scoring” approach to radiologists’ performance assessment must be changed.• Telemedicine peer review and personalized elearning significantly decrease the number of discrepancies.• Teleradiology allows linking all primary-level hospitals to a common peer review network.

show abstract

“…Error-reduction strategies can be targeted toward systems or individuals. At the system or departmental level, institutions can support radiologists through a formalized peer-review processes, continuing medical education, and implementation of structural changes to the work environment (eg, adjusting work hours to limit fatigue, reducing number of interruptions) [4–6,9–12]. At the individual level, radiologists can reduce their errors by participating in peer review and being mindful of the types of errors that occur in their specific work environment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specific to radiology, a 20-year retrospective analysis estimates the error rate leading to clinically significant outcomes to be between 2% and 20% [2] depending on modality or system of study. The literature provides us with a systems-based analysis of the causes, classifications, consequences, and prevention of error in radiology [3–9], as well as an entire “Pearls and Pitfalls” (2010–2016) series devoted to anatomic variants and mimics within subspecialty radiology [3]. We aim to provide readers with a concise summary of the common types of errors using cases from our institution that are specific to abdominal cross-sectional imaging.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Classification of Error in Abdominal Imaging: Pearls and Pitfalls for Radiologists

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review for radiologists plays an important role in identifying contributing factors that can lead to diagnostic errors and patient harm. It is essential that all radiologists be aware of the multifactorial causes of diagnostic error in radiology and the methods available to reduce it. This pictorial review provides readers with an overview of common errors that occur in abdominal radiology and strategies to reduce them. This review aims to make readers more aware of pitfalls in abdominal imaging so that these errors can be avoided in the future. This essay also provides a systematic approach to classifying abdominal imaging errors that will be of value to all radiologists participating in peer review.

show abstract

Peer Review in Radiology: How Can We Learn from Our Mistakes?

Abstract: I would give great praise to the physician whose mistakes are small, for perfect accuracy is seldom to be seen.-Hippocrates [1]

Cited by 4 publications

References 16 publications

User opinions for the Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound journal differ among demographic groups

User opinions for the Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound journal differ among demographic groups

Telemedicine-based system for quality management and peer review in radiology

Classification of Error in Abdominal Imaging: Pearls and Pitfalls for Radiologists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About