PubMed · 14999291
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Deb Koen. 2004-03-04. Nuts and bolts. Reference points.. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj6978-104b
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Diagnostic radiology does not have objective benchmarks for acceptable levels of missed diagnoses. Until now, data collection of radiological discrepancies has been very time consuming. The culture within the specialty did not encourage it. However, public concern about patient safety is increasing. There have been recent innovations in compiling radiological interpretive discrepancy rates which may facilitate radiological standard setting. However standard setting alone will not optimise radiologists' performance or patient safety. We must use these new techniques in radiological discrepancy detection to stimulate greater knowledge sharing, targeted instruction and teamworking among radiologists. Not all radiological discrepancies are errors. Radiological discrepancy programmes must not be abused as an instrument for discrediting individual radiologists. Discrepancy rates must not be distorted as a weapon in turf battles. Radiological errors may be due to many causes and are often multifactorial. A systems approach to radiological error is required. Meaningful analysis of radiological discrepancies and errors is challenging. Valid standard setting will take time. Meanwhile, we need to develop top-up training, mentoring and rehabilitation programmes.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.