Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Breast Cancer Research and BioMed Central.

This article is part of the supplement: British Society of Breast Radiology Annual Scientific Meeting 2012

Poster presentation

Fatigue and performance in interpreting breast screening mammograms

S Taylor-Phillips1*, A Clarke1, M Wheaton2, O Kearins3 and M Wallis4

  • * Corresponding author: S Taylor-Phillips

Author Affiliations

1 The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

2 University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK

3 West Midlands Quality Assurance Reference Centre, Birmingham, UK

4 Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, UK

For all author emails, please log on.

Breast Cancer Research 2012, 14(Suppl 1):P24  doi:10.1186/bcr3279

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/14/S1/P24


Published:9 November 2012

© 2012 Taylor-Phillips et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

Interpreting mammograms is a repetitive visual task, which may cause fatigue. Current practice in England for digital mammography is that both readers examine batches of mammograms in the same order as one another. This research examines whether there is a potential benefit in the two readers examining the cases in a different order to one another, to ameliorate any effects of fatigue at the system level.

Methods

NBSS records at one screening centre for 4 years were examined (2007 to 2010, seven readers, >170,000 cases). The time and date that each case was reported was extracted from NBSS. A period of over 1 hour without reporting any cases was defined as a break. Recall rate was compared for the first 10 cases since a break and the 10 cases after that using a within-subjects t test.

Results

Each reader examined between 20,080 and 74,028 cases over 4 years, and recall rates ranged from 3.6% to 5.9%. Recall rate was 2.3% higher for the first 10 cases after the break than for the subsequent 10 cases (P = 0.004). The sample was too small to examine effects on cancer detection rate.

Conclusion

There may be patterns in performance with time since a break. Further research is needed to ascertain whether these patterns remain present in a larger more controlled sample, and whether changing case order could improve overall performance. The Changing case Order to Optimise patterns of Performance in Screening (CO-OPS) randomised controlled trial will be begin recruitment in England soon to address these questions.