In response to Jean DerGurahian's "Docs talk 'nighthawking' at RSNA":
We had a recent incidence of the "nighthawk" reading being different than the reading by the in-house radiologist. Unfortunately the patient had already gone to surgery before the radiologist gave the amended report. The outcome was uneventful, but this prompted an internal review of "nighthawk" interpretations against the in-house interpretation, and making sure the "nighthawk" interpretation is part of the chart.
I think it can be a valuable tool. Who wouldn't like to sleep in? At the same time, the process for screening and credentialing of radiologists should be very thorough so that we do not get the person who is only after the bottom line, or we base decisions and treatments off misleading interpretations that set up for potential harm. I would not want my child to go to surgery if it wasn't necessary. I'm not sure I would be too forgiving if the outcome was less than acceptable.
Missy Hanna, R.N.Ft. Smith, Ark. To submit a letter to YOUR VIEWS, click here. Please include your name, title and hometown.