An assessment of the clinical effects of reporting accident and emergency radiographs

Abstract A prospective study of the accuracy of interpretation of radiographs by casualty officers and radiologists is presented. The casualty officers readings were correct in 83% of cases, and the radiologists' in 95%. There was agreement of interpretation in 83% of the examinations. This study indicates that there are clinical and economic benefits when the radiologist's report is available before the patient leaves the hospital. Delayed reporting of films is considered to be less satisfactory but is still of value as it increases the detection of clinically significant abnormalities and also clarifies most of the 10% of studies about which the casualty officer is uncertain. Where a delayed reporting system is practised, a 25% reduction in radiologist's workload would be achieved by reporting only those films considered by the casualty officer to be “normal” or ”uncertain”. Attempts to reduce workload still further by not reporting any films will increase the number of patients poorly managed in casualty.