Errors in abdominal computed tomography

Sixty-nine patients are presented in whom a substantial error was made on the initial abdominal computed tomography report. Certain features of these errors have been analysed. In 30 (43.5%) a lesion was simply not recognised (error of observation); in 39 (56.5%) the wrong conclusions were drawn about the nature of normal or abnormal structures (error of interpretation). The 39 errors of interpretation were more complex; in 7 patients an abnormal structure was noted but interpreted as normal, whereas in four a normal structure was thought to represent a lesion. Other interpretive errors included those where the wrong cause for a lesion had been ascribed (24 patients), and those where the abnormality was substantially under-reported (4 patients). Various features of these errors are presented and discussed. Errors were made just as often in relation to small and large lesions. Consultants made as many errors as senior registrar radiologists. It is like that dual reporting is the best method of avoiding such errors and, indeed, this is widely practised in our unit. (Author). 9 refs.; 5 figs.; 1 tab