ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Wrong-side imaging orders: automated detection using electronic health record data - a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWrong-side diagnostic imaging order errors are preventable errors that can delay diagnosis and cause patient harm yet remain underdetected due to limitations in existing reporting systems.
objectiveTo develop and validate an automated electronic health record (EHR)-based method for detecting potential wrong-side diagnostic imaging order errors using an adapted Retract-and-Reorder (RAR) approach and to identify associated risk factors.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingSix-facility health system comprising inpatient, outpatient and emergency room sites.
methodsWe screened 355 000 imaging orders with side specified, placed during 2021 across our healthcare system. We adapted the RAR methodology, originally developed to detect near-miss medication errors, by extending detection windows to 24 hours and identifying any orders switching from one side to the contralateral side, accounting for multiprovider workflows inherent in imaging. We validated the method through chart review of 100 randomly selected RAR events, then applied the query across all imaging orders. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors associated with RAR events.
resultsWe identified 1667 RAR events (4.70 per 1000 orders). Validation yielded a positive predictive value of 87% (95% CI 79.0% to 92.2%), estimating 4.09 confirmed wrong-side errors per 1000 orders. The odds of an RAR event were significantly higher in outpatient settings compared with inpatient settings (OR 4.53; 95% CI 3.80 to 5.42) and among administrative staff compared with attending physicians (OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.73 to 2.49). CT scans showed 79% higher odds of an RAR event compared with X-rays (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.39).
conclusionThis validated approach offers a scalable solution for automated detection of potential wrong-side diagnostic imaging order errors. The methodology leverages commonly available EHR data to support continuous surveillance and intervention evaluation for improved diagnostic safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.