Diagnostic Accuracy

You are here: Home » Standards » Diagnostic Accuracy

Maintain a <2% error rate with comprehensive quality programs that include prospective peer review and concurrence review of high risk studies

Hospitals and referring physicians often take for granted that the radiology interpretations they rely upon are accurate; however, the data suggests that all radiologists – even very good ones – make diagnostic errors every day.

In fact, the Radiology Quality Institute reported in its Diagnostic Accuracy in Radiology white paper that the average documented error rate in radiology was 4.4% across modalities and up to 9.2% depending on the type of studies interpreted, modality mix and subspecialty expertise. It is therefore critical that providers implement quality programs that encourage reporting, increase accountability and effectively identify the types of predictable human errors that can be avoided through the introduction of system-level improvements. The principle, which is simple, is that physicians with better tools will make fewer mistakes.

Radisphere’s quality standards and programs are unparalleled in the industry, which is why we have the lowest reported error rate in the industry. Our prospective, double-blind peer review of more than 1% of all studies is the cornerstone of our QA program. In fact, we have integrated routing logic into our radiology information system to ensure a random, statistically valid sample size and fully objective peer review process.

In addition to our peer review program, Radisphere has integrated system-wide risk mitigation tools into our workflow management system to help radiologists avoid errors when interpreting problem prone examinations. We are able to automatically route high-risk studies for real-time concurrence review by a second radiologist, reducing the possibility of an interpretative error.

Click to enlarge image

As evidenced in the graphic above, Radisphere’s peer review and concurrence review programs help detect and mitigate diagnostic errors before a patient’s treatment is adversely affected. They are integral to establishing a fully accountable diagnostic accuracy process that results in quality interpretations and better patient care.



Additional Resources: