Emergency medicine residents’ interpretation of computed tomography scans in patients presenting with suspected acute appendicitis improve after training

Aim: Abdominal computed tomography (CT) is considered as the best imaging tool in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) in adults. Since most medical centers do not have access to immediate radiological assessment, emergency physicians (EPs) may have to interpret CTs when they need to make immediate clinical decisions. Therefore, it has become a necessity for EPs to achieve a certain level of imaging experience. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of a short educational intervention on the ability of emergency medicine residents (EMRs) to interpret AA criteria and diagnose AA using abdominal CT.Material and Methods: Our study was an intervention study evaluating the effectiveness of education. The EMRs were given a 2-hour didactic session on “abdominal CT interpretation in the diagnosis of AA” by an experienced radiologist. Abdominal CTs of 39 patients with a final diagnosis of AA and 8 patients with other diagnoses were interpreted by four senior EMRs (3rd- and 4th-year residents) and three junior EMRs (1st- and 2nd-year residents) before and 2 weeks after the didactic session. Interpretations by the EMRs were compared with the radiologist’s interpretations and classified as agreement or disagreement.Results: Interpretation skills of senior EMRs before and after educational intervention showed considerable improvement in the rate of agreement (before vs after % agreement) didactic teaching as follows: enlargement of the appendix (72.3% vs. 86.2%), appendiceal wall thickening (69.7% vs. 81.9%), heterogeneous wall enhancement (46.8% vs. 61.2%), periappendiceal inflammation (63.8% vs. 79.8%), and AA diagnosis (73.4% vs. 88.8%), but not for appendicolith (79.8% vs. 77.7%). Junior EMRs showed no changes following the intervention. Conclusion: After a short educational intervention, the senior EMRs showed significant improvement in interpreting AA diagnoses and abdominal CT criteria compared to junior EMRs.

PDF

___

1. Iacobellis F, Iadevito I, Romano F, et al. Perforated Appendicitis: Assessment With Multidetector Computed Tomography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2016;37:31-6.
2. Brown MA. Imaging acute appendicitis. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 2008;29:293-307.
3. Bagheri-Hariri S, Ayoobi-Yazdi N, Afkar M, et al. Abdominal and pelvic CT scan interpretation of emergency medicine physicians compared with radiologists' report and its impact on patients' outcome. Emerg Radiol 2017;24:675-80.
4. Raja AS, Mortele KJ, Hanson R, et al. Abdominal imaging utilization in the emergency department: trends over two decades. Int J Emerg Med 2011;4:19.
5. Malone AJ Jr, Wolf CR, Malmed AS, et al. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis: value of unenhanced CT. Am J Roentgenol 1993;160:763-6.
6. Balthazar EJ, Birnbaum BA, Yee J, et al. Acute appendicitis: CT and US correlation in 100 patients. Radiology 1994;190:31-5.
7. Lane MJ, Katz DS, Ross BA, et al. Unenhanced helical CT for suspected appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:405-9.
8. Funaki B, Grosskreutz SR, Funaki CN. Using unenhanced helical CT with enteric contrast material for suspected appendicitis in patients treated at a community hospital. Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:997- 1001.
9. Choi YH, Fischer E, Hoda SA, et al. Appendiceal CT in 140 cases: diagnostic criteria for acute and necrotizing appendicitis. Clin Imaging 1998;22:252-71.
10. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, et al. Helical CT technique for the diagnosis of appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a focused appendix CT examination. Radiology 1997;202:139-44.
11. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, et al. Effect of computed tomography of the appendix on treatment of patients and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med 1998;338:141-6.
12. Jo YH, Kim K, Rhee JE, et al. The accuracy of emergency medicine and surgical residents in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Am J Emerg Med 2010;28:766-70.
13. Kang MJ, Sim MS, Shin TG, et al. Evaluating the accuracy of emergency medicine resident ınterpretations of abdominal CTs in patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain. J Korean Med Sci 2012;27:1255-60.
14. Limon O, Oray D, Ertan C, et al. Recognizing acute appendicitis criteria on abdominal CT: Do emergency physicians need a preliminary report? Am J Emerg Med 2015;33:1002-5.
15. Song JH, Cho H , Park JH, et al. Learning curve and period of experience required for the competent diagnosis of acute appendicitis using abdominal computed tomography:a prospective observational study. Clin Exp Emerg Med 2017;4:222-31.
16. Choi D, Park H, Lee YR, et al. The most useful findings fordiagnosing acute appendicitis on contrastenhanced helical CT. Acta Radiol 2003;44:574-82.
17. Chu LL, Webb EM, Stengel JW, et al. CT of acute appendicitis: can diagnostic accuracy serve as a practical performance metric for readers specialized in abdominal imaging? Clinical İmaging 2014;38:56-9.
18. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA. Sensitivity and specificity of the individual CT signs of appendicitis: experience with 200 helical appendiceal CT examinations. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997;21:686- 92.
19. Levitt MA, Dawkins R, Williams V, et al. Abbreviated educational session improves cranial computed tomography scan interpretations by emergency physicians. Ann Emerg Med 1997;30:616-21.
20. Perron AD, Huff JS, Ullrich CG, et al. A multicenter study to improve emergency medicine residents’ recognition of intracranial emergencies on computed tomography. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32:554-62.
21. Kerwin C, Tommaso L, Kulstad E. A brief training module improves recognition of echocardiographic wall-motion abnormalities by emergency medicine physicians. Emerg Med In 2011;2011:483242.
22. Walls J, Hunter N, Brasher PM, et al. The DePICTORS Study: discrepancies in preliminary interpretation of CT scans between on-call residents and staff. Emerg Radiol 2009;16:303-8.
23. Wechsler RJ, Spettell CM, Kurtz AB, et al. Effects of training and experience in interpretation of emergency body CT scans. Radiology 1996;199:717-20.