Stakeholder Expectations for Radiologists: Obstacles or Opportunities?

A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of the Effectiveness and Experiences of Quality Improvement Interventions in Radiology

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compile and synthesize evidence regarding the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions in radiology and the experiences and perspectives of staff and patients.

METHODS

Databases searched for both published and unpublished studies were as follows: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Mednar, Trove, Google Gray, OCLC WorldCat, and Dissertations and Theses. This review included both qualitative and quantitative studies of patients undergoing radiological examinations and/or medical imaging health care professionals; a broad range of quality improvement interventions including introduction of health information technology, effects of training and education, improved reporting, safety programs, and medical devices; the experiences and perspectives of staff and patients; context of radiological setting; a broad range of outcomes including patient safety; and a result-based convergent synthesis design.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were selected from 4846 identified by a systematic literature search. Five groups of interventions were identified: health information technology (n = 6), training and education (n = 6), immediate and critical reporting (n = 3), safety programs (n = 2), and the introduction of mobile radiography (n = 1), with demonstrated improvements in outcomes, such as improved operational and workflow efficiency, report turnaround time, and teamwork and communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings were constrained by the limited range of interventions and outcome measures. Further research should be conducted with study designs that might produce findings that are more generalizable, examine the other dimensions of quality, and address the issues of cost and risk versus benefit.

Restructuring of a Hospital Radiology Department: Subspecialization Between Man, Machine, and Multidisciplinary Board

BACKGROUND

 Radiology, like almost no other discipline, is faced with a rapid increase in information and technology. This and the growing demands regarding referring medicine, quality requirements, and personnel efficiency increasingly require subspecialization in terms of content. There is already an established move towards radiological subspecialization in the Anglo-American region. In this review article, the content and possibilities of restructuring a hospital radiology department are presented in order to support acceptance in German-speaking countries.

METHOD

 Based on the current literature, the aspects of subspecialized radiology as well as its necessity, advantages, and disadvantages are discussed and the challenges to hospital management with respect to strategic implementation in the individual phases are presented based on the example of a university radiology department. The viewpoints also take into account the education regulations and integrate a modern learning concept.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

 Modern restructuring of hospital radiology departments is faced with increasing demands on a traditionally technically organized radiology department with regard to the complexity of referring medicine, subspecialization pressure (including in certified boards), and staff efficiency. The restructuring of a radiology department must be aligned with the clinical requirements and discussed in the overall concept of radiology including its environment.

KEY POINTS

  · The tremendous expansion of knowledge requires a content-based subspecialization of modern radiology as a cross-sectional discipline.. · Proactive radiology meets the increasing demands of its clinical partners and offers great potential for improving quality and efficiency.. · The restructuring of a hospital radiology department requires well-planned strategic management taking into account all involved processes, resources, and personnel qualifications..

CITATION FORMAT

· Henkelmann J, Ehrengut C, Denecke T. Restructuring of a Hospital Radiology Department: Subspecialization Between Man, Machine, and Multidisciplinary Board. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; DOI: 10.1055/a-1545-4713.

Analysis of core processes of the MRI workflow for improved capacity utilization

PURPOSE

To analyze core processes of the MRI workflow and to evaluate efficiency for improved patient throughput and capacity utilization.

METHOD

Prospective data collection was conducted during a four-week time period and a total sum of 160 working hours for each of the two 1.5 T MRI scanners. Three core processes defined the value stream of patient handling before, during and after the MRI examination: i) Scheduling & Registration, ii) Organization & Preparation, and iii) MR scan. Quantitative data was collected for six essential time intervals of the MRI workflow.

RESULTS

A total of 302 MRI examinations were assessed. The workflow analysis revealed that effective utilization of scan capacity during operating hours varied by scanner (Scanner 1: 77 % / Scanner 2: 85 %). Mean process times for were: patient preparation time 18.9 min (±15.1) p = 0.11, scan preparation time 5.7 min (±4.0) p = 0,015, effective scan time 39.6 min (±18.0) p < 0.0001, scan room occupation time 50.9 min (±21.0) p < 0.0001, clean-up time 5.6 min (±3.2) p = 0.001, total patient handling time 69.7 min (±26.3) p < 0.0001, turnover time 13.4 min (±21.4) p = 0.65.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the utility and applicability of a standardized core processes analyses for MRI scanning, which identified underutilization of scanning capacities, related to multiple factors, such as punctuality of patients, the number of same day cancellations, the process of placing an IV access and patient transport contribute to underutilization of MRI scanners. Furthermore, proactive patient management and effective communication with patients and referring physicians might have relevant time saving potential in the scan room.

Subspecialized radiology reporting: productivity and impact on the turnaround times for radiology reports in a middle-income country

Objective

To evaluate the effect that transitioning from a model of general radiology reporting to one of subspecialized radiology reporting has on report turnaround times (TATs) and on productivity in the radiology department of a hospital in a middle-income country.

Materials and Methods

The reporting workflow in our radiology department was changed from general reporting (any radiologist reporting imaging studies for any specialty) to subspecialized reporting (radiologists exclusively reporting imaging studies that fall within their subspecialty-abdominal, musculoskeletal, cardiothoracic, emergency, or neurological imaging). This was a retrospective study in which we compared general reporting with subspecialized reporting in terms of the following variables: the TAT; the proportions of reports completed within 2 h and within 24 h (TAT-2h and TAT- 24 h, respectively); and productivity. Data were collected over two 24-month periods (2015-2016 for general reporting and 2017-2018 for subspecialized reporting).

Results

A total of 208,516 reports were generated. The median report TAT decreased from 49.1 h and 52.9 h in 2015 and 2016, respectively, to 16.1 h and 15.2 h in 2017 and 2018, respectively (p < 0.001). The TAT-2h also improved, increasing from 8.7% and 7.9% in 2015 and 2016, respectively, to 52.0% and 61.3% in 2017 and 2018, respectively (p < 0.001), as did the TAT- 24 h, which increased from 12.1% and 14.1% in 2015 and 2016, respectively, to 74.3% and 78.7% in 2017 and 2018, respectively (p < 0.001). Between the two periods, the total number of scans performed increased by 33% (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

The implementation of a subspecialized reporting system significantly improved the median TAT for radiology reports, as well as increasing the TAT-2h and TAT- 24 h, during a time of increased productivity.

Impact of 24/7/365 Attending Radiologist Coverage on the Turnaround Time in an Emergency and Trauma Radiology Department

OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of 24/7/365 attending radiologist coverage on the turnaround time (TAT) of trauma and nontrauma cases in an emergency and trauma radiology department.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review in which TAT of patients coming to the emergency department between 2 periods: (1) December 1, 2012, to September 30, 2013, and (2) January 1, 2017, to January 30, 2018, and whose reports were read by an attending emergency and trauma radiologist was noted.

RESULTS

The 24/7/365 radiology coverage was associated with a significant reduction in TAT of computed tomography reports, and the time reduction was comparable between trauma and nontrauma cases. In adjusted models, the extension of radiology coverage was associated with an average of 7.83 hours reduction in overall TAT (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.44-8.22) for reports related to trauma, in which 2.73 hours were due to reduction in completion to transcription time (TC; 95% CI: 2.53-2.93), and 5.10 hours were due to reduction in transcription to finalization time (TF; 95% CI: 4.75-5.44). For reports related to nontrauma cases, 24/7/365 coverage was associated with an average of 6.07 hours reduction in overall TAT (95% CI: 3.54-8.59), 2.91 hours reduction in TC (95% CI: 1.55-4.26), and 3.16 hours reduction in TF (95% CI: 0.90-5.42).

CONCLUSION

Our pilot study demonstrates that the implementation of on-site 24/7/365 attending emergency radiology coverage at a tertiary care center was associated with a reduced TAT for trauma and nontrauma patients imaging studies. Although the magnitude and precision of estimates were slightly higher for trauma cases as compared to nontrauma cases. Trauma examinations stand to benefit the most from 24/7/365 attending level radiology coverage.

It is About "Time": Academic Neuroradiologist Time Distribution for Interpreting Brain MRIs

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Efficiency is central to current radiology practice. Knowledge of report generation timing is essential for workload optimization and departmental staffing decisions. Yet little research evaluates the distribution of activities performed by neuroradiologists in daily work.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This observational study tracked radiologists interpreting 358 brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in an academic practice over 9 months. We measured the total duration from study opening to report signing and times for five activities performed during this period: image viewing, report transcription, obtaining clinical data, education, and other. Attendings, fellows, and residents reading studies independently and attendings over-reading trainee-previewed studies were observed.

RESULTS

Ten attendings, 12 fellows, and 13 residents spent a mean of 11, 18, and 16 minutes reading brain MRIs independently. Mean duration was significantly different comparing attendings in all assignments to fellows (18.36 ± 1.05 minutes, p = 0.0001) or residents (16.31 ± 1.11 minutes, p = 0.001) but not between fellows/residents. Mean duration among attendings reading independently versus over-reading trainees was not statistically different. Attendings spent the same time on image viewing (4.07-5.33 minutes) with or without trainees. Attending transcription time was shortest when over-reading trainees (2.24 minutes) and longest when reading independently (4.20 minutes), demonstrating benefit of the draft report. Fellows and Residents spent longer on image viewing (7.14 minutes and 8.06 minutes, respectively) and transcription (7.02 minutes and 5.40 minutes, respectively) than attendings reading independently.

CONCLUSION

Neuroradiologist time/activity distributions for reading brain MRI studies were measured, setting the stage to establish a benchmark for future reference and suggesting opportunities for greater efficiency. Furthermore, report production time can be decreased when a draft report is available.

Radiologic Professionalism in Modern Health Care

Modern radiology is at the forefront of technological progress in medicine, a position that often places unique challenges on its professional character. This article uses "Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium: A Physician Charter," a document published in 2002 and endorsed by several major radiology organizations, as a lens for exploring professional challenges in modern radiology. The three main tenets of the Charter emphasize patient welfare, patient autonomy, and the reduction of disparities in health care distribution. This article reviews the ways in which modern technology and financial structures potentially create stressors on professionalism in radiology, while highlighting the opportunities they provide for radiologists seeking to fulfill the professional goals articulated in the Charter. Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and voice recognition systems have transformed the speed of radiology and enhanced the ability of radiologists to improve patient care but also have brought new tensions to the workplace. Although teleradiology may improve global access to radiologists, it may also promote the commoditization of radiology, which diminishes the professional stature of radiologists. Social media and patient portals provide radiologists with new forums for interacting with the public and patients, potentially promoting patient welfare. However, patient privacy and autonomy are important considerations. Finally, modern financial structures provide radiologists with both entrepreneurial opportunities as well as the temptation for unprofessional conduct. Each of these advances carries the potential for professional growth while testing the professional stature of radiology. By considering the risks and benefits of emerging technologies in the modern radiology world, radiologists can chart an ethical and professional future path.

Expectations Among Academic Clinicians of Inpatient Imaging Turnaround Time: Does it Correlate with Satisfaction?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Imaging report turnaround time (RTAT) is an important measure of radiology performance and has become the leading priority in customer satisfaction surveys conducted among nonradiologists, who may not be familiar with the imaging workflow. Our aim was to assess physicians' expected RTAT for commonly ordered studies and determine if satisfaction correlates with met expectations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of inpatient imaging was conducted at a single academic institution, and RTAT for 18,414 studies was calculated. Examinations were grouped by study type, priority, and time of day. A cross-sectional survey instrument was completed by 48 internal medicine and surgery resident physicians with questions regarding RTAT and their level of satisfaction with various examinations.

RESULTS

Actual RTAT ranged from 1.6 to 26.0 hours, with chest radiographs and computed tomographies generally faster than magnetic resonance images and ultrasounds. Urgent (STAT) examinations and those ordered during business hours have shorter RTAT. The time for image interpretation largely contributed to the RTAT because of the lack of night-time radiology coverage. Referring physician expectations were consistently shorter than actual RTAT, ranging from 30 minutes to 24 hours. Overall satisfaction scores were inversely correlated with RTAT, with a strong correlation to the time from study order to imaging (r(2) = 0.63) and a weak correlation to the image interpretation time (r(2) = 0.17). Satisfaction scores did not correlate with whether the actual RTAT met expectations (r(2) = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Referring physician satisfaction is likely multifactorial. Although RTAT has been reported as a priority, shortening turnaround time alone may not directly improve clinician satisfaction.

Reconciling quality and cost: A case study in interventional radiology

OBJECTIVES

To provide a method to calculate delay cost and examine the relationship between quality and total cost.

METHODS

The total cost including capacity, supply and delay cost for running an interventional radiology suite was calculated. The capacity cost, consisting of labour, lease and overhead costs, was derived based on expenses per unit time. The supply cost was calculated according to actual procedural material use. The delay cost and marginal delay cost derived from queueing models was calculated based on waiting times of inpatients for their procedures.

RESULTS

Quality improvement increased patient safety and maintained the outcome. The average daily delay costs were reduced from 1275 € to 294 €, and marginal delay costs from approximately 2000 € to 500 €, respectively. The one-time annual cost saved from the transfer of surgical to radiological procedures was approximately 130,500 €. The yearly delay cost saved was approximately 150,000 €. With increased revenue of 10,000 € in project phase 2, the yearly total cost saved was approximately 290,000 €. Optimal daily capacity of 4.2 procedures was determined.

CONCLUSIONS

An approach for calculating delay cost toward optimal capacity allocation was presented. An overall quality improvement was achieved at reduced costs.

KEY POINTS

• Improving quality in terms of safety, outcome, efficiency and timeliness reduces cost. • Mismatch of demand and capacity is detrimental to quality and cost. • Full system utilization with random demand results in long waiting periods and increased cost.

Journal club: Renal masses detected at abdominal CT: radiologists' adherence to guidelines regarding management recommendations and communication of critical results

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess radiologists' adherence to published guidelines for managing renal masses detected at abdominal CT at one institution and to a critical results communication policy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A validated natural language processing tool supplemented by manual review was used to randomly assemble a cohort of 97 radiology reports from all abdominal CT reports (n = 11,952) generated from July 2010 to June 2011. Critical renal mass findings warranted consideration for surgery, intervention, or imaging follow-up and required direct, separate, and timely communication to the referrer in addition to the radiology report. Primary outcomes were adherence to guidelines and institutional policy for communicating critical results. Sample size allowed a 95% CI ± 5% for primary outcome. Pearson chi-square test was performed to assess whether radiology subspecialization was predictive of the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Of all abdominal CT reports, 35.6% contained at least one renal mass finding (4.3% critical). Guideline adherence was lower for patients with critical than for those with noncritical findings (48/57 [84.2%] vs 40/40 [100%]; p = 0.01). Adherence to critical result communication policy was 73.7% (42/57). For critical findings, abdominal radiologists had higher guideline adherence (40/43 [93.0%] vs 8/14 [57.1%]; p = 0.001) and critical result communication policy adherence (36/43 [83.7%] vs 6/14 [42.9%]; p = 0.002) than nonabdominal radiologists.

CONCLUSION

In reporting renal masses detected at abdominal CT, radiologists largely adhered to management guidelines but did not adhere to the critical results communication policy in one of four reports. Subspecialization improved adherence to both management guidelines and the institution's critical result communication policy.

Radiologist report turnaround time: impact of pay-for-performance measures

OBJECTIVE

Expedited finalized radiologist report turnaround times (RTAT) are considered an important quality care metric in medicine. This study was performed to evaluate the impact of a radiologist pay-for-performance (PFP) program on reducing RTAT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A radiologist PFP program was used to assess its impact on RTAT for all departmental reports from 11 subspecialty divisions. Study periods were 3 months before (baseline period) and immediately after (immediate period) the introduction of the program and 2 years later after the program had terminated (post period). Three RTAT components were evaluated for individual radiologists and for each radiology division: examination completion (C) to final signature (F), C to preliminary signature (P), and P to F.

RESULTS

Eighty-one radiologists met the inclusion criterion for the study and performed a final signature on 99,959 reports during the baseline period, 104,673 reports during the immediate period, and 91,379 reports during the post period. Mean C-F, C-P, and P-F for all reports decreased significantly from baseline to immediate to post period (p < 0.0001), with the largest effect on the P-F component. Similarly, divisional C-F, C-P, and P-F also significantly decreased (p < 0.0001) for all divisions except the C-F for nuclear and neurovascular radiology from baseline to immediate period and the C-P component from baseline to post period for cardiac radiology.

CONCLUSION

A radiologist PFP program appears to have a marked effect on expediting final report turnaround times, which continues after its termination.

From shared data to sharing workflow: merging PACS and teleradiology

Due to a host of technological, interface, operational and workflow limitations, teleradiology and PACS/RIS were historically developed as separate systems serving different purposes. PACS/RIS handled local radiology storage and workflow management while teleradiology addressed remote access to images. Today advanced PACS/RIS support complete site radiology workflow for attending physicians, whether on-site or remote. In parallel, teleradiology has emerged into a service of providing remote, off-hours, coverage for emergency radiology and to a lesser extent subspecialty reading to subscribing sites and radiology groups. When attending radiologists use teleradiology for remote access to a site, they may share all relevant patient data and participate in the site's workflow like their on-site peers. The operation gets cumbersome and time consuming when these radiologists serve multi-sites, each requiring a different remote access, or when the sites do not employ the same PACS/RIS/Reporting Systems and do not share the same ownership. The least efficient operation is of teleradiology companies engaged in reading for multiple facilities. As these services typically employ non-local radiologists, they are allowed to share some of the available patient data necessary to provide an emergency report but, by enlarge, they do not share the workflow of the sites they serve. Radiology stakeholders usually prefer to have their own radiologists perform all radiology tasks including interpretation of off-hour examinations. It is possible with current technology to create a system that combines the benefits of local radiology services to multiple sites with the advantages offered by adding subspecialty and off-hours emergency services through teleradiology. Such a system increases efficiency for the radiology groups by enabling all users, regardless of location, to work "local" and fully participate in the workflow of every site. We refer to such a system as SuperPACS.

Enhancing CT productivity: strategies for increasing capacity

OBJECTIVE

This article will identify strategies and tactics that can be used to enhance CT capacity. The potential financial benefits to the organization and the impact on market share will be discussed.

CONCLUSION

Many organizations are challenged to meet stakeholder demands of providing additional CT capacity and reduction of patient waiting lists. However, much can be achieved through workflow redesign, the addition of key personnel, and implementation of information system platforms and databases.

Radiology report turnaround: expectations and solutions

The ultimate work product of a radiology department is a finalized radiology report. Radiology stakeholders are now demanding faster report turnaround times (RTAT) and anything that delays delivery of the finalized report will undermine the value of a radiology department. Traditional reporting methods are inherently inefficient and the desire to deliver fast RTAT will always be challenged. It is only through the adoption of an integrated radiology information system (RIS)/picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and voice recognition (VR) system that RTAT can consistently meet stakeholder expectations. VR systems also offer the opportunity to create standardized, higher quality reports.

Maximizing outpatient computed tomography productivity using multiple technologists

PURPOSE

A key radiology stakeholder demand is to increase patient access to computed tomography (CT) and reduce waiting lists. However, the number of patients that a single technologist can scan is limited because of the many tasks required to process a patient through a CT scan. However, many tasks could be performed simultaneously by using additional personnel. This study evaluated how many additional patients can be scanned using a 2- or 3-technologist model with outpatient multidetector CT and its impact on CT capacity.

METHODS

The number and type of individual technologist tasks were initially evaluated. The time to perform these tasks was then measured using 1-, 2-, and 3-technologist models, including the time a patient was within the CT scanner room, to determine the hourly patient throughput on a CT scanner. Two theoretic CT operations were then developed to evaluate the impact on CT capacity.

RESULTS

Thirty-four technologist workflow tasks were identified. A total of 205 outpatients were evaluated. The total time to perform all tasks for 1-, 2-, and 3-technologist models was 27, 23, and 22 minutes, respectively. CT room time per patient for 1-, 2-, and 3-technologist models was 12, 9.7, and 8.0 minutes, respectively. However, the number of patients scanned per hour for 1-, 2-, and 3-technologist models was 2.2, 5.2, and 7.5, respectively. There was an increase of more than 12,000 potential patient CT slots made available using 2 technologists 7 days per week and 22,000 additional slots for a 3-technologist model when compared with a single-technologist model on weekdays only.

CONCLUSION

A single-technologist model for outpatient multidetector CT is inefficient with limited opportunity for increased patient throughput. The use of multiple technologists (or other key personnel) optimizes CT throughput and capacity, particularly with a 3-technologist model, which can yield a greater than three-fold increase in CT productivity.