Don’t blink: inattentional blindness in radiology report interpretation

OBJECTIVES: Medical errors attributable to inattentional blindness (IAB) may contribute to adverse patient outcomes. IAB has not been studied in the context of reviewing written radiological reports. This cross-sectional, deception-controlled study measures IAB of physicians towards an unexpected stimulus while interpreting written radiological reports. METHODS: Physicians and residents from multiple fields were asked to interpret four radiology text reports. Embedded in one was an unexpected stimulus (either an abnormally placed medical exam finding or a non-medical quote from the popular television show Doctor Who). Primary outcomes were differences in detection rates for the two stimuli. Secondary outcomes were differences in detection rates based on level of training and specialty. RESULTS: The unexpected stimulus was detected by 47.8% (n = 43) of participants; the non-medical stimulus was detected more often than the medical stimulus (75.0% vs 21.7%, odds ratio 10.8, 95% confidence interval 4.1–28.7; p < 0.0001). No differences in outcomes were observed between training levels or specialties. CONCLUSION: Only a minority of physicians successfully detected an unexpected stimulus while interpreting written radiological reports. They were more likely to detect an abnormal non-medical stimulus than a medical stimulus. Findings were independent of the level of training or field of medical practice. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study is the first to show that IAB is indeed present among internal medicine, family medicine, and emergency medicine providers when interpreting written radiology reports.