In response to Jean DerGurahian's "Docs talk 'nighthawking' at RSNA":
As a practicing emergency department physician with "nighthawk" services after-hours, my emergency department group knows all too well the pros and cons of nighthawk readings. While they are clearly perceived as an economic threat to the staff radiologist, they can't have it both ways, i.e., sleep and get paid. Nighthawk readings are all reviewed by our staff radiologist after the fact, doing the patient or treating physicians no good in the contemporaneous timeframe. I find the nighthawk readings (always typed as opposed to handwritten "wet" readings) faster, more complete and upstanding against the biased scrutiny of an "overread." Who is to say which is more accurate, the nighthawk or staff second read?
Chris ThompsonEmergency department physicianLos Angeles To submit a letter to YOUR VIEWS, click here. Please include your name, title and hometown.