Table 2 Kim & Mansfield radiologic error categorization, 2014 [28]
From: Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable?
Error type | Explanation | % |
|---|---|---|
Under-reading | Abnormality visible, but not reported (Fig. 2) | 42% |
Satisfaction of search | After having identified a first abnormality, radiologist fails to continue to look for additional abnormalities (Fig. 3) | 22% |
Faulty reasoning | Abnormalities identified, but attributed to wrong cause | 9% |
Abnormalities outside area of interest (but visible) | Many on first or last image of CT or MR series, suggesting radiologist’s attention not fully engaged at beginning or end of reviewing series (Fig. 4) | 7% |
Satisfaction of report (alliterative reasoning [29]) | Uncritical reliance on previous report in reaching diagnosis, leading to perpetuation of error through consecutive studies | 6% |
Failure to consult prior imaging studies | 5% | |
Inaccurate or incomplete clinical history | 2% | |
Correct report failing to reach referring clinician | 0.08% |