Diagnostic errors in computed tomography outsourcing: Analysis of a single center

Aim: The reporting of medical imaging with outsourcing is used by many hospitals in Turkey. The aim of this study was to evaluateoutsourced computed tomography (CT) reports and determine any errors made.Material and Methods: The study was planned with a prospective design. The reports of the CT tests taken during 2017 by anoutsourced company of 35 randomly selected patients were compared. In the comparison, findings which could lead to a change indiagnosis and treatment were labelled as “significant” and findings which would not lead to a change in diagnosis and treatment werelabelled as “non-significant”. Findings reported in the study comparison but not mentioned or written incorrectly in the outsourcedcompany report were classified as “absence” and any finding that was written but not present was labelled as “extra”.Results: The study included the examsimages and reports of 35 patients, comprising 18 (51.4%) males and 17 (48.6%) females witha mean age of 49.37± 23.66 years. A major error was found in 27 (77%) cases. No statistically significant difference was determinedin the significant, non-significant, absent and extra data according to patient age (p>0.05).Conclusion: There should be an implementation of regulations for clinicians to be able to re-use the diagnostic algorithm. Residentialemployment of radiologists should be encouraged rather than outsourcing.

PDF

___

1. Akdağ R. Outsourcing Services in the Turkish Health Care System, Research Report. Ankara, TR, 2010.
2. Ekin A, Yanık A, Kıyak M. Economical evaluation of outsourcing in an education and research hospital. Hacettepe J Health Administration 2012;15:1-23.
3. Güler H, Kayral İH, Öztürk A, et al. Executive performance measurement model in health and performance of implementation. Sağlıkta Performans ve Kalite Dergisi 2014;8:1-25.
4. Başara BB, Güler C, Soytutan İ, et al. Republic of Turkey ministry of health health statistics yearbook. Ankara, TR: Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health, 2017.
5. OECD Health Statistics 2017. http://www.oecd.org/els/ health-systems/health-data.htm
6. Atasever M, Altınkaynak K, Genel bilgiler, Sağlık işletmelerinde tibbi laboratuvar hizmet alımları yönetimi. Ankara TR: Ayrıntı Basımevi 2017;25-77.
7. Lee CS, Nagy PG, Weaver SJ, et al. Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201:611-7.
8. Tanrıöver MD, Serteser M, Ünsal İ, et al., Diagnostic Errors, A Prioritized Improvement Area for a Safe and High Quality Healthcare System. İstanbul, TR: Acıbadem University Publications, 2016.
9. Radiological Test Density Analysis and Solution Proposals for The Problems of Responsibility of The Control Density: Turkish Society Radiol, 2018.
10. Altman DJ, Gunderman RB. Outsourcing: a primer for radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 2008;5:893-9.
11. Reinus WR. American radiology and outsourcing. Radiology 2007;242:654-7.
12. Successful Health System Reforms: The Case of Turkey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Eur, 2012.