Publication

Unread Second-Opinion Radiology Reports: A Potential Waste of Health Care Resources

Heinz, S. A., Kwee, T. C. & Yakar, D., Oct-2020, In : American Journal of Roentgenology. 215, 4, p. 934-939 6 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Copy link to clipboard

Documents

  • Unread Second-Opinion Radiology Reports_ A Potential Waste of Health Care Resources

    Final publisher's version, 624 KB, PDF document

    Request copy

DOI

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to investigate how frequently second-opinion radiology reports are not read by clinicians and to identify reasons why reports are not read. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study included 4696 consecutive second-opinion reports of external imaging examinations that were authorized by subspecialty radiologists at a tertiary care institution over a 1-year period. RESULTS. Of 4696 second-opinion reports, 537 were not read by a clinician, corresponding to a frequency of 11.4% (95% CI, 10.6-12.3%). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, five variables were significantly and independently associated with the second-opinion report not being read: Inpatient status (odds ratio [OR], 163.26; p < 0.001), sonography as the imaging modality (OR, 5.07; p = 0.014), surgery (OR, 0.18; p < 0.001) or neurology (OR, 2.82; p < 0.001) as the requesting clinician's specialty, and interventional radiology as the subspecialty of the radiologist who authorized the second-opinion report (OR, 3.52; p = 0.047). We found no significant independent associations between the clinician not reading the secondopinion report and patient age, patient sex, or time between submission of the second-opinion request and finalization of the report. CONCLUSION. A considerable proportion of second-opinion reports are not read by clinicians, which represents an appreciable but potentially reversible waste of health care resources. The reasons why clinicians do not read reports need to be investigated in future studies. If subspecialty radiologists and clinicians take the proven determinants into account, the amount of second-opinion readings with limited additional clinical value may be reduced.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)934-939
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume215
Issue number4
Early online date12-Aug-2020
Publication statusPublished - Oct-2020

    Keywords

  • diagnostic imaging, health information exchange, referral and consultation

ID: 131624089