A recent study reveals referring providers do not always read requested second opinions.
Are you sure that referring provider who asked you to be a second pair of eyes on a particular patient’s imaging study actually read the report you sent? If you said “yes,” do not be so sure.
In a new study published recently in the American Journal of Roentgenology, investigators from The Netherlands found that a significant portion of second-opinion radiology reports go unread. Not only does this equate to unnecessary expense for the patient, but it also means you could be devoting time to interpretations that will not impact patient care.
“This potentially reversible waste of healthcare resources is cause for concern,” said the research team led by Sabine A. Heinz, a radiologist with the University Medical Center Groningen. “Our study has exposed the non-negligible magnitude of this issue; therefore, it should be taken seriously by healthcare policymakers, including governmental bodies and insurance companies.”
Overall, in the United States, requests for second opinions are climbing, Heinz’s team noted. Between 2003 and 2016, these readings have risen from 4.3 percent to 35.7 percent. At the team’s individual practice in the Netherlands, though, second-opinions have ballooned by approximately 150 percent over the past five years. But, given that uptick, the team was curious about whether all of those reports were being reviewed.
To make that determination, they retrospectively reviewed 4,696 consecutive second-opinion reports that were requested by sub-specialists. They found 537 – 11.4 percent – went unread. Based on the average cost of a second-opinion reading and how much time it usually takes, the impact of those bypassed reports was $63,427 and 134.25 radiologist work hours.
“Although these numbers appear modest, they pertain to a single institution during a one-year time period,” the team said. “Cumulative nationwide figures would raise these totals, possibly substantially.”
It is also possible, they said, since opening a report in the electronic medical record does not necessarily mean the referring provider read it, the true number of unread scans could be much higher.
The team also found that the unread second opinions most frequently fell into four categories:
Ultimately, the team concluded, if providers remember that a considerable amount of second-opinion reports go unread, they could make an impact on unnecessary imaging and healthcare waste.
“If sub-specialty radiologists and clinicians take proven determinants into account,” they concluded, “the amount of second opinion readings with limited additional clinical value may be reduced.”
Stay at the forefront of radiology with the Diagnostic Imaging newsletter, delivering the latest news, clinical insights, and imaging advancements for today’s radiologists.
The Reading Room Podcast: A Closer Look at Remote MRI Safety, Part 3
August 2nd 2025In the third of a three-part podcast episode, Emanuel Kanal, M.D. and Tobias Gilk, MRSO, MRSE, discuss strategies for maintaining the integrity of time-out procedures and communication with remote MRI scanning.
The Reading Room Podcast: A Closer Look at Remote MRI Safety, Part 2
August 2nd 2025In the second of a multi-part podcast episode, Emanuel Kanal, M.D. and Tobias Gilk, MRSO, MRSE, share their perspectives on remote MRI safety protocols for ensuring screening accuracy and adherence to conditional implant guidelines as well as a rapid and effective response to adverse events.
FDA Clears Point-Of-Care Ultrasound Platform and AI Software for Neuraxial Procedures
August 2nd 2025The dual FDA clearances for the Accuro 3S point-of-care ultrasound device and the SpineNav-AI machine learning-based software may enhance precision and safety with ultrasound-guided neuraxial procedures.