Medical errors are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Literature on common mechanisms to reduce radiological error are reviewed including shifting from general to subspecialized care, improving expertise, instituting shift volume and shift length limits, minimizing non-interpretive tasks, participating in focused educational and multidisciplinary conferences, and increasing practice size. Implementation of shift volume limits and full sub-specialization has the potential to significantly reduce radiologist error rates.
GroberEDBohnenJMA. Defining medical error. Can J Surg2005; 48: 39–44.
2.
MakaryMADanielM. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ2016; 353: i2139.
3.
BrunoMAWalkerEAAbujudehHH. Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. Radiographics2015; 35: 1668–1676.
4.
WuMZMcInnesMDFMacdonaldDB, et al.CT in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of interpretation discrepancy rates. Radiology2014; 270: 717–735.
5.
BabiarzLSYousemDM. Quality control in neuroradiology: discrepancies in image interpretation among academic neuroradiologists. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2012; 33: 37–42.
6.
BorgstedeJPLewisRSBhargavanM, et al.RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J Am Coll Radiol2004; 1: 59–65.
7.
LiGWarnerMLangBH, et al.Epidemiology of Anesthesia-related mortality in the United States, 1999–2005. Anesthesiology2009; 110: 759–765.
GarlandLH. On the scientific evaluation of diagnostic procedures. Radiology1949; 52: 309–328.
10.
LoevnerLASonnersAISchulmanBJ, et al.Reinterpretation of cross-sectional images in patients with head and neck cancer in the setting of a multidisciplinary cancer center. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2002; 23: 1622–1626.
11.
RosenkrantzABDuszakRBabbJS, et al.Discrepancy rates and clinical impact of imaging secondary interpretations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Radiol2018; 15: 1222–1231.
12.
KabadiSJKrishnarajA. Strategies for improving the value of the radiology report: a retrospective analysis of errors in formally over-read studies. J Am Coll Radiol2017; 14: 459–466.
13.
ReveszGKundelHL. Psychophysical studies of detection errors in chest radiology. Radiology1977; 123: 559–562.
14.
AbujudehHHBolandGWKaewlaiR, et al.Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. Eur Radiol2010; 20: 1952–1957.
15.
PatelSHStantonCLMillerSG, et al.Risk factors for perceptual-versus-interpretative errors in diagnostic neuroradiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2019; 40: 1252–1256.
16.
IvanovicVPaydarAChangYM, et al.Impact of shift volume on neuroradiology diagnostic errors at a large tertiary academic center. Acad Radiol2019; 30: 1584–1588.
17.
BradyAP. Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable?Insights Imaging2017; 8: 171–182.
18.
ItriJNTappouniRRMcEachernRO, et al.Fundamentals of diagnostic error in imaging. Radiographics2018; 38: 1845–1865.
19.
MettlerFABhargavanMFaulknerK, et al.Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources--1950-2007. Radiology2009; 253: 520–531.
20.
LuYArensonRL. The academic radiologist’s clinical productivity: an update. Acad Radiol2005; 12: 1211–1223.
21.
McDonaldRJSchwartzKMEckelLJ, et al.The effects of changes in utilization and technological advancements of cross-sectional imaging on radiologist workload. Acad Radiol2015; 22: 1191–1198.
22.
O’boyleEAguinisH. The best and the rest: revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance. Pers Psychol2012; 65: 79–119.
23.
HannaTNLamoureuxCKrupinskiEA, et al.Effect of shift, schedule, and volume on interpretive accuracy: a retrospective analysis of 2.9 million radiologic examinations. Radiology2018; 287: 205–212.
24.
IvanovicVBroadheadKBeckR, et al.Factors associated with neuroradiologic diagnostic errors at a large tertiary-care academic medical center: a case-control study. AJR Am J Roentgenol2023; 221: 355–362.
25.
IvanovicVBroadheadKChangYM, et al.Shift volume directly impacts neuroradiology error rate at a large academic medical center: the case for volume limits. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2024; 45: 374–378.
26.
KasalakÖAlnahwiHToxopeusR, et al.Work overload and diagnostic errors in radiology. Eur J Radiol2023; 167: 111032.
27.
RuutiainenATDurandDJScanlonMH, et al.Increased error rates in preliminary reports issued by radiology residents working more than 10 consecutive hours overnight. Acad Radiol2013; 20: 305–311.
28.
ZhouSHannaTMaT, et al.Daytime, evening, and overnight: the 24-h radiology cycle and impact on interpretative accuracy. Emerg Radiol2023; 30: 607–612.
29.
SokolovskayaEShindeTRuchmanRB, et al.The effect of faster reporting speed for imaging studies on the number of misses and interpretation errors: a pilot study. J Am Coll Radiol2015; 12: 683–688.
30.
LeeMHSchemmelAJPoolerBD, et al.Workflow dynamics and the imaging value chain: quantifying the effect of designating a nonimage-interpretive task workflow. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol2017; 46: 275–281.
31.
ShahSHAtwehLAThompsonCA, et al.Workflow interruptions and effect on study interpretation efficiency. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol2022; 51: 848–851.
32.
The Royal College of Radiologists website. Clinical radiology workload: guidance on radiologists' reporting figures. https://www.rcr.ac.uk. AccessedOctober 1, 2025.
33.
Japanese College of Radiology webpage. JCR statement on appropriate workload of radiologists. jcr.or.jp/English-page. AccessedOctober 1, 2025.
34.
Goldberg-SteinSFriginiLALongS, et al.ACR RADPEER committee white paper with 2016 updates: revised scoring system, new classifications, self-review, and subspecialized reports. J Am Coll Radiol2017; 14: 1080–1086.
35.
IvanovicVAssadsangabiRHacein-BeyL, et al.Neuroradiology diagnostic errors at a tertiary academic centre: effect of participation in tumour boards and physician experience. Clin Radiol2022; 77: 607–612.
36.
MuenchGWithamDRubarthK, et al.Imaging intensive care patients: multidisciplinary conferences as a quality improvement initiative to reduce medical error. Insights Imaging2022; 13: 175.
37.
CarneyPAAbrahamLCookA, et al.Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography. Acad Radiol2012; 19: 1114–1120.
38.
LinverMNPasterSBRosenbergRD, et al.Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases. Radiology1992; 184: 39–43.
39.
ItriJNKangHCKrishnanS, et al.Using focused missed-case conferences to reduce discrepancies in musculoskeletal studies interpreted by residents on call. Am J Roentgenol2011; 197: W696–W705.
40.
HatzoglouVOmuroAMHaqueS, et al.Second-opinion interpretations of neuroimaging studies by oncologic neuroradiologists can help reduce errors in cancer care. Cancer2016; 122: 2708–2714.
41.
BriggsGMFlynnPAWorthingtonM, et al.The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: is there added value?Clin Radiol2008; 63: 791–795.
42.
LauritzenPMAndersenJGStokkeMV, et al.Radiologist-initiated double reading of abdominal CT: retrospective analysis of the clinical importance of changes to radiology reports. BMJ Qual Saf2016; 25: 595–603.
43.
LauritzenPMStavemKAndersenJG, et al.Double reading of current chest CT examinations: clinical importance of changes to radiology reports. Eur J Radiol2016; 85: 199–204.
44.
BissetGSCroweJ. Diagnostic errors in interpretation of pediatric musculoskeletal radiographs at common injury sites. Pediatr Radiol2014; 44: 552–557.
45.
KarmazynBWannerMRMarineMB, et al.The added value of a second read by pediatric radiologists for outside skeletal surveys. Pediatr Radiol2018; 49: 203–209.
46.
RosenkrantzABDuszakRBabbJS, et al.Discrepancy rates and clinical impact of imaging secondary interpretations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Radiol2018; 15: 1222–1231.
47.
KaneBLuzSO’briainS, et al.Multidisciplinary team meetings and their impact on workflow in radiology and pathology departments. BMC Med2007; 5: 15.
48.
LysackJTHoyMHudonME, et al.Impact of neuroradiologist second opinion on staging and management of head and neck cancer. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2013; 42: 39.
49.
JordanYJJordanJELightfooteJB, et al.Quality outcomes of reinterpretation of brain CT studies by subspecialty experts in stroke imaging. Am J Roentgenol2012; 199: 1365–1370.
50.
ViertelVGBabiarzLSCaroneM, et al.Quality control in neuroradiology: impact of trainees on discrepancy rates. Am J Neuroradiol2012; 33: 1032–1036.
51.
LianKBharathaAAvivRI, et al.Interpretation errors in CT angiography of the head and neck and the benefit of double reading. Am J Neuroradiol2011; 32: 2132–2135.
52.
BalthazarPKonstantopoulosCWickCA, et al.Trainees may add value to patient care by decreasing addendum utilization in radiology reports. Am J Roentgenol2017; 209: 976–981.
53.
WechslerRJSpettellCMKurtzAB, et al.Effects of training and experience in interpretation of emergency body CT scans. Radiology1996; 199: 717–720.
54.
NaringrekarHVDaveJAkyolY, et al.Comparing the productivity of teaching and non-teaching workflow models in an academic abdominal imaging division. Abdom Radiol2021; 46: 2908–2912.
55.
BrighamLRMansouriMAbujudehHH. Radiology report addenda: a self-report approach to error identification, quantification, and classification. Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 205: 1230–1239.
56.
RosenkrantzABBansalNK. Diagnostic errors in abdominopelvic CT interpretation: characterization based on report addenda. Abdom Radiol (NY)2016; 41: 1793–1799.
57.
FergusonAAssadsangabiRChangJ, et al.Analysis of misses in imaging of head and neck pathology by attending neuroradiologists at a single tertiary academic medical centre. Clin Radiol2021; 76: 786.e9.
BiddleGAssadsangabiRBroadheadK, et al.Diagnostic errors in cerebrovascular pathology: retrospective analysis of a neuroradiology database at a large tertiary academic medical center. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2022; 43: 1271–1278.
60.
VongSChangJAssadsangabiR, et al.Analysis of perceptual errors in skull-base pathology. NeuroRadiol J2023; 36: 515–523.
61.
BellLTOJamesRRosaJA, et al.Reducing interruptions during duty radiology shifts, assessment of its benefits and review of factors affecting the radiology working environment. Clin Radiol2018; 73: 759.
62.
LevyJLFreemanCWChoJK, et al.Evaluating the impact of a call triage assistant on resident efficiency, errors, and stress. J Am Coll Radiol2020; 17: 414–420.
63.
BanzigerCMcNeilKGohHL, et al.Simple changes to the reporting environment produce a large reduction in the frequency of interruptions to the reporting radiologist: an observational study. Acta Radiol2023; 64: 1873–1879.
64.
ChristensenEWNicolaGNRulaEY, et al.Budget neutrality and medicare physician fee schedule reimbursement trends for radiologists, 2005 to 2021. J Am Coll Radiol2023; 20: 947–953.
DeckeyDGEltoraiAEMJindalG, et al.Analysis of malpractice claims involving diagnostic and interventional neuroradiology. J Am Coll Radiol2019; 16: 764–769.
VermaNPaciniGSTorradaJP, et al.Subspecialized radiology reporting: productivity and impact on the turnaround times for radiology reports in a middle-income country. Radiol Bras2020; 53: 236–240.
71.
SternCBoehmTSeifertB, et al.Subspecialized radiological reporting expedites turnaround time of radiology reports and increases productivity. Röfo2018; 190: 623–629.
72.
RosenkrantzABWangWHughesDR, et al.Generalist versus subspecialist characteristics of the U.S. radiologist workforce. Radiology2018; 286: 929–937.
73.
RosenkrantzABFleishonHBSilvaE, et al.Radiology practice consolidation: fewer but bigger groups over time. J Am Coll Radiol2020; 17: 340–348.
74.
ItriJNKangHCKrishnanS, et al.Using focused missed-case conferences to reduce discrepancies in musculoskeletal studies interpreted by residents on call. AJR Am J Roentgenol2011; 197: W696–W705.
