• C Melvin, R Bodley, A Booth, T Meagher, C Record, and P Savage.
• Department of Radiology, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury HP21 8AL, UK. catherine.melvin@smh.nhs.uk
• Clin Radiol. 2004 Sep 1; 59 (9): 841-5.

AimTo develop a practical mechanism for reviewing reporting discrepancies as addressed in the Royal College of Radiologists publication "To err is human. The case for review of reporting discrepancies".Materials And MethodsA regular meeting was developed, and has evolved, within the department to review discrepancies. Standard forms were devised for submission of cases as well as recording and classification of discrepancies. This has resulted in availability of figures that can be audited annually.ResultsEighty-one cases involving error were reviewed over a 12-month period. Seven further cases flagged as discrepancies were not identified on peer review. Twenty-four reports were amended subsequent to the meeting. Nineteen additional cases were brought to the meeting as illustrative of teaching points or for discussion.ConclusionWe have evolved a successful process of reviewing reporting errors, which enjoys the confidence and support of all clinical radiologists, and is perceived as a method of improving patient care through an increasing awareness of lapses in performance.

19 keywords...

hide…