Double reading rates and quality assurance practices in Norwegian hospital radiology departments: two parallel national surveys

Abstract

Background: Double reading as a quality assurance (QA) tool is employed extensively in Norwegian hospital radiology departments. The practice is resource consuming and regularly debated.

Purpose: To investigate the rates of double reading in Norwegian hospital radiology departments, to identify department characteristics associated with double reading rates, and to investigate associations between double reading and other quality improvement.

Material and methods: We issued two parallel national surveys to management and to consultant radiologists, respectively. Management was defined as the chief medical officer and/or the head of the radiology department. The management survey covered staffing, perceived resource situation, double reading, guidelines, and quality improvement. The radiologist survey served to validate management responses concerning double reading. Management survey items concerning practices of quality improvement were organized into three indices reflecting different quality approaches, namely: appropriateness of investigations; personal performance feedback; and system performance feedback.

Results: The response rates of the surveys were 100% (45/45) for management and 55% (266/483) for radiologists. Of all exams read by consultants, 33% were double read. The double reading rate was highest in university hospital departments (59%), intermediate in other teaching departments (30%), and lowest in non-teaching departments (11%) (P = 0.01). Among the quality indices, mean scores were highest on appropriateness index (68%), intermediate on the person index (56%), and lowest on system index (37%). There were no correlations between double reading rates and scores on any of the quality indices.

Conclusion: The rate of double reading in Norwegian hospital radiology is significantly correlated to department teaching status, but not to other practices of quality work.

Keywords: QA/QC; health policy and practice and observer performance; safety.