Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

AIM: To determine the accuracy of trainees reporting computed tomography (CT) examinations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Over a 6-month period a single consultant reviewed all the CT examinations reported by registrars in one radiology department. After recording a provisional registrar report each examination was jointly reviewed by the consultant and registrar. The consultant's opinion was regarded as the gold standard. Data collected included: the error rate, whether an error was significant, leading to a change in patient management, and whether the mistake was a false-negative or positive. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-one patients were included in the study. There was an overall error rate of 21.5%. A significant error leading to a change in management was made in 10% of reports, and a significant error that did not lead to a change in management was made in 9.3%; 2.1% of reports had insignificant errors; and 69% of errors were false-negatives. CONCLUSION: Registrars make a significant number of errors affecting patient management when reporting CT and ideally all examinations should be reviewed by a consultant.


Journal article


Clin Radiol

Publication Date





159 - 162


Clinical Competence, Consultants, Diagnostic Errors, False Negative Reactions, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Medical Audit, Medical Records, Medical Staff, Hospital, Prospective Studies, Radiology, Risk Management, Tomography, X-Ray Computed