Enriched Audience Engagement Through Twitter: Should More Academic Radiology Departments Seize the Opportunity?

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate use of the microblogging social network Twitter by academic radiology departments (ARDs) in the United States.MethodsTwitter was searched to identify all accounts corresponding with United States ARDs. All original tweets from identified accounts over a recent 3-month period (August to October 2014) were archived. Measures of account activity, as well as tweet and link content, were summarized.ResultsFifteen ARDs (8.2%) had Twitter accounts. Ten (5.5%) had “active” accounts, with ≥1 tweet over the 3-month period. Active accounts averaged 711 ± 925 followers (maximum, 2,885) and 61 ± 93 tweets (maximum, 260) during the period. Among 612 tweets from active accounts, content most commonly related to radiology-related education (138), dissemination of departmental research (102), general departmental or hospital promotional material (62), departmental awards or accomplishments (60), upcoming departmental lectures (59), other hospital-related news (55), medical advice or information for patients (38), local community events or news (29), social media and medicine (27), and new departmental or hospital hires or expansion (19). Eighty percent of tweets (490 of 612) included 315 unique external links. Most frequent categories of link sources were picture-, video-, and music-sharing websites (89); the ARD’s website or blog (83); peer-reviewed journal articles (40); the hospital’s or university’s website (34), the lay press (28), and Facebook (14).ConclusionsTwitter provides ARDs the opportunity to engage their own staff members, the radiology community, the department's hospital, and patients, through a broad array of content. ARDs frequently used Twitter for promotional and educational purposes. Because only a small fraction of ARDs actively use Twitter, more departments are encouraged to take advantage of this emerging communication tool.     

Managing a Multisite Academic–Private Radiology Practice Reading Environment: Impact of IT Downtimes on Enterprise Efficiency

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess whether the complex radiology IT infrastructures needed for large, geographically diversified, radiology practices are inherently stable with respect to system downtimes, and to characterize the nature of the downtimes to better understand their impact on radiology department workflow.MethodsAll radiology IT unplanned downtimes over a 12-month period in a hybrid academic–private practice that performs all interpretations in-house (no commercial “nighthawk” services) for approximately 900,000 studies per year, originating at 6 hospitals, 10 outpatient imaging centers, and multiple low-volume off-hours sites, were logged and characterized using 5 downtime metrics: duration, etiology, failure type, extent, and severity.ResultsIn 12 consecutive months, 117 unplanned downtimes occurred with the following characteristics: duration: median time = 3.5 hours with 34% <1.5 hours and 30% >12 hours; etiology: 87% were due to software malfunctions, and 13% to hardware malfunctions; failure type: 88% were transient component failures, 12% were complete component failures; extent: all sites experienced downtimes, but downtimes were always localized to a subset of sites, and no system-wide downtimes occurred; severity (impact on radiologist workflow): 47% had minimal impact, 50% moderate impact, and 3% severe impact.ConclusionsIn the complex radiology IT system that was studied, downtimes were common; they were usually a result of transient software malfunctions; the geographic extent was always localized rather than system wide; and most often, the impacts on radiologist workflow were modest.     

What Characterizes Academic Radiology Departments That Secure Large Amounts of External Funding for Research?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify factors associated with high levels of external research funding in order to provide departments with information that may help them increase their external research funding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: National Institutes of Health (NIH) data on grants were analyzed to identify the 72 radiology departments receiving funds for diagnostic radiology research. A survey was sent to these departments. We placed them into one of three categories according to total NIH funds to the department. The survey asked about department characteristics such as size; breakdown of full-time faculty among MDs, MD/PhDs, and PhDs; research space; equipment type; and number and types of trainees. RESULTS: Thirty-nine surveys were returned, including 20 from the 21 departments with the most NIH funding. PhDs played a larger role in the most research funding-intensive departments than in others. These departments also were more likely than others to give protected time to all MDs and to devote over 5% of clinical revenues to research, and they had a lower clinical workload per MD. NIH was the source of 70% of their research funding, The role of MD/PhDs and research space per 1000 research dollars did not vary by research intensity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings only demonstrate associations; they do not show the direction of causality. Nonetheless, they suggest what departments need to do if they wish to increase their external research funding.     

Preliminary Reports in the Emergency Department: Is a Subspecialist Radiologist More Accurate Than a Radiology Resident?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether emergency department (ED) preliminary reports rendered by subspecialist attending radiologists who are reading outside their field of expertise are more accurate than reports rendered by radiology residents, and to compare error rates between radiologists and nonradiologists in the ED setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed at a large academic medical center with a busy ED. An electronic preliminary report generator was used in the ED to capture preliminary interpretations rendered in a clinical setting by radiology residents, junior attendings (within 2 years of taking their oral boards), senior attendings, and ED clinicians between August 1999 and November 2004. Each preliminary report was later reviewed by a final interpreting radiologist, and the preliminary interpretation was adjudicated for the presence of substantial discordances, defined as a difference in interpretation that might immediately impact the care of the patient. Of the 612,890 preliminary reports in the database, 65,780 (11%) met inclusion criteria for this study. A log-linear analysis was used to assess the effects of modality and type of author on preliminary report error rates. RESULTS: ED clinicians had significantly higher error rates when compared with any type of radiologist, regardless of modality. Within the radiologists, residents and junior attendings had lower error rates than did senior attendings, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Subspecialized attending radiologists who interpret ED examinations outside their area of expertise have error rates similar to those of radiology residents. Nonradiologists have significantly higher error rates than radiologists and radiology residents when interpreting examinations in the ED.     

Using Social Media to Share Your Radiology Research: How Effective Is a Blog Post?

PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the volume of individuals who viewed online versions of research articles in 2 peer-reviewed radiology journals and a radiology blog promoted by social media.MethodsThe authors performed a retrospective study comparing online analytic logs of research articles in the American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR) and the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) and a blog posting on Radiopaedia.org from April 2013 to September 2014. All 3 articles addressed the topic of reporting incidental thyroid nodules detected on CT and MRI. The total page views for the research articles and the blog article were compared, and trends in page views were observed. Factors potentially affecting trends were an AJNR podcast and promotion of the blog article on the social media platforms Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter to followers of Radiopaedia.org in February 2014 and August 2014.ResultsThe total numbers of page views during the study period were 2,421 for the AJNR article and 3,064 for the AJR article. The Radiopaedia.org blog received 32,675 page views, which was 13.6 and 10.7 times greater than AJNR and AJR page views, respectively, and 6.0 times greater than both journal articles combined. Months with activity above average for the blog and the AJNR article coincided with promotion by Radiopaedia.org on social media.ConclusionsDissemination of scientific material on a radiology blog promoted on social media can substantially augment the reach of more traditional publication venues. Although peer-reviewed publication remains the most widely accepted measure of academic productivity, researchers in radiology should not ignore opportunities for increasing the impact of research findings via social media.     

Factors Influencing Patients’ Perspectives of Radiology Imaging Centers: Evaluation Using an Online Social Media Ratings Website

PurposeThe goal of this study was to use patient reviews posted on Yelp.com, an online ratings website, to identify factors most commonly associated with positive versus negative patient perceptions of radiology imaging centers across the United States.MethodsA total of 126 outpatient radiology centers from the 46 largest US cities were identified using Yelp.com; 1,009 patient reviews comprising 2,582 individual comments were evaluated. Comments were coded as pertaining to either the radiologist or other service items, and as expressing either a positive or negative opinion. Distribution of comments was compared with center ratings using Fisher’s exact test.ResultsOverall, 14% of comments were radiologist related; 86% pertained to other aspects of service quality. Radiologist-related negative comments more frequent in low-performing centers (mean rating ≤2 on 1-5 scale) than high-performing centers (rating ≥4) pertained to imaging equipment (25% versus 7%), report content (25% versus 2%), and radiologist professionalism (25% versus 2%) (P < .010). Other service-related negative comments more frequent in low-performing centers pertained to receptionist professionalism (70% versus 21%), billing (65% versus 10%), wait times (60% versus 26%), technologist professionalism (55% versus 12%), scheduling (50% versus 17%), and physical office conditions (50% versus 5%) (P < .020). Positive comments more frequent in high-performing centers included technologist professionalism (98% versus 55%), receptionist professionalism (79% versus 50%), wait times (72% versus 40%), and physical office conditions (64% versus 25%) (P < .020).ConclusionsPatients’ perception of radiology imaging centers is largely shaped by aspects of service quality. Schedulers, receptionists, technologists, and billers heavily influence patient satisfaction in radiology. Thus, radiologists must promote a service-oriented culture throughout their practice.