rss
Postgrad Med J 2003;79:214-217 doi:10.1136/pmj.79.930.214
  • Original article

Chest radiographs in the emergency department: is the radiologist really necessary?

  1. M E Gatt1,
  2. G Spectre1,
  3. O Paltiel2,
  4. N Hiller3,
  5. R Stalnikowicz4
  1. 1Department of Medicine, Hadassah University Hospital, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel
  2. 2Hematology Unit and the Department of Social Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School
  3. 3Radiology Department
  4. 4Emergency Department
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr Moshe E Gatt, Department of Medicine, Hadassah University Hospital, Mount Scopus, PO Box 24035, Jerusalem 91240, Israel; 
 Gatt{at}md.huji.ac.il
  • Received 12 July 2002
  • Accepted 25 November 2002

Abstract

Background: The chest radiograph is considered one of the most complex imaging modalities to interpret. Several studies have evaluated radiograph interpretation in the emergency department, and considerable disagreement among clinical physicians and expert radiologists has been observed in the reading of chest films. The interpretation of chest radiographs by emergency department physicians was compared with senior radiologists in discharged patients, and misinterpretations assessed in relation to the physician’s level of training.

Methods: Radiological descriptions of 509 chest radiographs of 507 patients, aged 16–98 years who were discharged from the emergency department, were prospectively reviewed. Missed findings were recorded with regard to the physician’s level of training and experience. The effects of misinterpretations on discharge recommendations were also investigated. Statistical assessment was conducted using the χ2 test. Interobserver agreement was also tested by the κ coefficient.

Results: The sensitivity for detecting different abnormalities in the radiographs ranged from 20% to 64.9% and specificity from 94.9% to 98.7%. Despite the low sensitivities found, there were relatively few clinical implications of the “missed” findings since they were either of a minor nature or appropriate follow up was prescribed. The overall interobserver reliability, assessed by the κ coefficient, was 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.46). These findings did not change significantly by emergency department physician’s level of training.

Conclusions: Emergency department physicians frequently miss specific radiographic abnormalities and there is considerable discrepancy between their interpretations and those of trained radiologists. These findings highlight the importance of routine evaluation of chest radiographs by a well trained radiologist and emphasise the need for improving interpretive skills among emergency department physicians.

Footnotes

    Register for free content

    The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

    Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.