A recent JACR article by Quint, et. al., noted that “More than 20% of our reports contained potentially confusing errors, and most radiologists believed that report error rates were much lower than they actually were.” In response, Peter Marcovici, M.D., a radiology resident at UCSD writes about his own in-house survey. On a scale from 1-5, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being “strongly agree,” his results were as follows:
1. I am satisfied with our VR software: 2.2
2. Our VR software increases my productivity/efficiency at work: 1.9
3. Our VR software decreases my productivity / efficiency at work: .2
4. Using our VR software introduces errors in communication: 4.2
5. I have seen errors in prior reports that I attribute to our VR software (not diagnostic errors): 4.4
6. I have been notified by a clinician because of an error due to our VR software: 3.8
7. I have seen an error attributable to our VR software that has significant clinical implication: 3.8
8. I have had to addend a report because of an error generated by our VR software: 4.1
9. Macros in our VR software increase completeness: 2.9
10. Macros in our VR software decrease accuracy: 3.6
11. Using our VR software enhances patient care and safety: 2.3
12. Our VR software increases potential for malpractice: 3.8
13. Our VR software allows for more time for teaching, learning, and attending conferences: 2.0
14. When reviewing reports generated by our VR software (before finalizing them), I notice errors which need correcting: 4.1
15. When comparing alternative systems (i.e., human transcription services), our VR software is . . .
a. Faster: 1.8
b. More accurate: 1.8
c. Leads to more confusing reports: 3.6
Does it make sense for radiologists to divert their gaze and attention to a third screen to edit thousands of words of text daily?
I conclude: NO! Which is no surprise to anyone.