Error review: Can this improve reporting performance?

AIM: This study aimed to assess whether error review can improve radiologis ts' reporting performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten Consultant Radiologists reported 50 plain radiog raphs, in which the diagnoses were established. Eighteen of the radiographs were normal, 32 showed an abnormality. The radiologists were shown their e rrors and then re-reported the series of radiographs after an interval of 4 -5 months. The accuracy of the reports to the established diagnoses was ass essed. Chi-square test was used to calculate the difference between the vie wings. RESULTS: On re-reporting the radiographs, seven radiologists improved their accuracy score, two had a lower score and one radiologist showed no score difference. Mean accuracy pre-education was 82.2%, (range 78-92%) and post- education was 88%, (range 76-96%). Individually, two of the radiologists sh owed a statistically significant improvement post-education (P < 0.01, P < 0.05). Assessing the group as a whole, there was a trend for improvement po st-education but this did not reach statistical significance. Assessing onl y the radiographs where errors were made on the initial viewing, for the gr oup as a whole there was a 63% improvement post-education. CONCLUSION: We suggest that radiologists benefit from error review, althoug h there was not a statistically significant improvement for the series of r adiographs in total. This is partly explained by the fact that some radiolo gists gave incorrect responses post-education that had initially been corre ct, thus masking the effect of the educational intervention. (C) 2001 The R oyal College of Radiologists.