Reducing diagnostic errors in the emergency department at the time of patient treatment

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to compare and combine the radiographic interpretation accuracy of emergency clinicians and radiographers in clinical practice. Methods: A total of 838 radiographic examinations were included for analysis from 1 August to 24 August 2020. The range of examinations reviewed included the appendicular and axial skeleton, chest and abdomen. Both paediatric and adult examinations were reviewed. The emergency clinician's and radiographer's interpretations for each examination were compared to the radiologist's report. This allowed mean sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy to be calculated. Results: The radiographer's interpretation demonstrated a mean sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 80%, 98% and 92%, respectively. The emergency clinician's interpretation demonstrated a mean sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 82%, 95% and 89%, respectively. When the radiographer's and emergency clinician's interpretations were combined, it yielded a mean sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 90%, 93% and 92%, respectively. Conclusions: This is the first study to directly compare and combine the accuracy of an emergency clinician's radiographic interpretation with a radiographer's interpretation within clinical practice. The present study demonstrated that with the addition of a radiographer's interpretation, an emergency clinician's interpretation can be more accurate than the emergency clinician's interpretation in isolation. This highlights the value of a radiographer's interpretation that can complement an emergency clinician's interpretation when a radiologist's report is unavailable.