Unread Second-Opinion Radiology Reports: A Potential Waste of Health Care Resources

Abstract

radiology departments are increasing. Importantly, to ensure the clinical value of a second-opinion reading, the report filed by the radiologist should be read by the clinician who requested the report [11, 12]. Many clinicians receive more than 10 radiology reports per week [13]. Consequently, their inclination to read a particular report may depend on patient and clinical circumstances. Data are lacking about how often clinicians do not read second-opinion reports and what determinants may influence a clinician's decision to not read a report. This information may be valuable to radiology departments and health care policy makers to gain insight into the utility of second-opinion readings and to identify potential opportunities to improve the efficacy of this practice.Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the frequency and determinants of clinicians not reading second-opinion radiology reports.

Recommendations in Second Opinion Reports of Neurologic Head and Neck Imaging: Frequency, Referring Clinicians’ Compliance, and Diagnostic Yield

“…Of note, the present study was performed between November 2016 and November 2017, when it was not yet possible to verify whether second opinion reports were read due to technical limitations. However, because the clinical scenario in our previous study 14 is the same as in the present study, the "nonreading" percentage of 16.4% is probably also applicable to the current data set. Further research is necessary to identify other sources of noncompliance to the recommendation in the second opinion report.…”

“…Of interest, a previous study by our research group showed that 16.4% (191/1,163) of second opinion NHN imaging reports in our patient population in 2018 were actually never read at all by a clinician. 14 In that same study that included second opinion reports from all different radiologic subspecialties, it was also reported that second opinion reports with neurology as the requesting specialty were significantly (P , .001) more prone to remaining unread compared with other requesting specialties (including otorhinolaryngologists) (OR ¼ 2.82; 95% CI, 1.78-4.47). 14 Why neurologists more frequently refrain from reading the second opinion report they request remains unclear, but it explains why some recommendations were not followed.…”

“…14 In that same study that included second opinion reports from all different radiologic subspecialties, it was also reported that second opinion reports with neurology as the requesting specialty were significantly (P , .001) more prone to remaining unread compared with other requesting specialties (including otorhinolaryngologists) (OR ¼ 2.82; 95% CI, 1.78-4.47). 14 Why neurologists more frequently refrain from reading the second opinion report they request remains unclear, but it explains why some recommendations were not followed. Of note, the present study was performed between November 2016 and November 2017, when it was not yet possible to verify whether second opinion reports were read due to technical limitations.…”

How much do second opinions improve men's health?

“…For example, reports may not be read by the original clinician (11%) or may not be acted upon (53%). Where follow‐up has been possible, second opinion reports have been more accurate and identified highly significant issues, especially in the abdomen and the musculoskeletal system 26–28 …”