Relative Roles of Radiologists and Other Physicians in Percutaneous Endovascular Neurointerventions

PurposeCerebral catheter angiography and endovascular neurointerventions (ENIs) were developed and refined by early pioneers in neuroradiology. Recently, with developments in the safety and efficacy of ENIs, other physician specialists have expressed strong interest in performing these procedures. Our purpose was to compare volume and utilization of ENIs, among the various specialties, from 2000 to 2013.MethodsData from the Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files for 2000 to 2013 were used to study ENI volume and utilization rates, by radiologists, neurosurgeons, neurologists, vascular surgeons, cardiologists, and other physicians.ResultsFrom 2000 to 2013, the volume of intracranial ENIs increased: overall, from 2,439 to 7,424; for radiologists, from 1,956 to 3,993; and for neurosurgeons, from 237 to 2,900. Although cardiologists did not perform many intracranial ENIs in these years, they performed most of the carotid artery stenting procedures (4,097, which is 51% of the total 8,201 performed in 2013).ConclusionsRadiologists continue to maintain a strong presence in the field of neurointerventional radiology, particularly in percutaneous intracranial interventions, performing 51% of all intracranial procedures in 2013, down from 80% in 2000. However, neurosurgeons have made substantial inroads into ENI procedures, with their volume increasing from 10% to 33%, from 2000 to 2013. The overall volume of ENIs rose steadily from 2000 to 2013.     

Comparing Preliminary and Final Neuroradiology Reports: What Factors Determine the Differences?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Trainees'' interpretations of neuroradiologic studies are finalized by faculty neuroradiologists. We aimed to identify the factors that determine the degree to which the preliminary reports are modified.MATERIALS AND METHODS:The character length of the preliminary and final reports and the percentage character change between the 2 reports were determined for neuroradiology reports composed during November 2012 to October 2013. Examination time, critical finding flag, missed critical finding flag, trainee level, faculty experience, imaging technique, and native-versus-non-native speaker status of the reader were collected. Multivariable linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between mean percentage character change and the various factors.RESULTS:Of 34,661 reports, 2322 (6.7%) were read by radiology residents year 1; 4429 (12.8%), by radiology residents year 2; 3663 (10.6%), by radiology residents year 3; 2249 (6.5%), by radiology residents year 4; and 21,998 (63.5%), by fellows. The overall mean percentage character change was 14.8% (range, 0%–701.8%; median, 6.6%). Mean percentage character change increased for a missed critical finding (+41.6%, P < .0001), critical finding flag (+1.8%, P < .001), MR imaging studies (+3.6%, P < .001), and non-native trainees (+4.2%, P = .018). Compared with radiology residents year 1, radiology residents year 2 (−5.4%, P = .002), radiology residents year 3 (−5.9%, P = .002), radiology residents year 4 (−8.2%, P < .001), and fellows (−8.7%; P < .001) had a decreased mean percentage character change. Senior faculty had a lower mean percentage character change (−6.88%, P < .001). Examination time and non-native faculty did not affect mean percentage character change.CONCLUSIONS:A missed critical finding, critical finding flag, MR imaging technique, trainee level, faculty experience level, and non-native-trainee status are associated with a higher degree of modification of a preliminary report. Understanding the factors that influence the extent of report revisions could improve the quality of report generation and trainee education.

Understanding the prevalence, causes, and types of discrepancies and errors in examination interpretation is a critical step in improving the quality of radiology reports. In an academic setting, discrepancies and errors can result from nonuniform training levels of residents and fellows. However, even the “experts” err, and a prior study found a 2.0% clinically significant discrepancy rate among academic neuroradiologists.¹ A number of factors can affect the accuracy of radiology reports. One variable of interest at teaching hospitals is the effect of the involvement of trainees on discrepancies in radiology reports. Researchers have found that compared with studies read by faculty alone, the rate of clinically significant detection or interpretation error was 26% higher when studies were initially reviewed by residents, and it was 8% lower when the studies were initially interpreted by fellows.² These findings suggest that perhaps faculty placed too much trust in resident interpretations, which led to a higher rate of discrepancies, while on the other hand, having a second experienced neuroradiology fellow look at a case can help in reducing the error rate.²In our academic setting, preliminary reports initially created by trainees are subsequently reviewed and finalized by faculty or staff. The changes made to preliminary reports are a valuable teaching tool for trainees because clear and accurate report writing is a critical skill for a radiologist.³ Recently, computer-based tools have been created to help trainees compare the changes between preliminary and final reports to improve their clinical skills and to facilitate their learning. Sharpe et al⁴ described the implementation of a Radiology Report Comparator, which allows trainees to view a merged preliminary/final report with all the insertions and deletions highlighted in “tracking” mode. Surrey et al⁵ proposed using the Levenshtein percentage or percentage character change (PCC) between preliminary and final reports as a quantitative method of indirectly assessing the quality of preliminary reports and trainee performance. The Levenshtein percentage, a metric used in computer science, compares 2 texts by calculating the total number of single-character changes between the 2 documents, divided by the total character count in the final text.⁵In this study, we analyzed preliminary neuroradiology reports dictated by trainees and the subsequent finalized reports revised by our faculty. We set out to identify the factors that determine the degree to which the preliminary reports are modified by faculty for residents and fellows, for daytime and nighttime shifts, and for CT and MR imaging examinations. We hypothesized that study complexity, lack of experience (for both trainee and faculty), and perhaps limited language skills (native-versus-non-native speaker) would result in a greater number of corrections.     

The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: is there added value?

AIM: To assess the impact on patient management of formal neuroradiology "second reading" of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images initially interpreted by general radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Second opinion reports during the calendar year 2004 were compared with the original report and assessed for major or minor discrepancies. A major discrepancy was separated from a minor discrepancy whereby a change in opinion significantly affected patient management. RESULTS: There were 506 second opinions during 2004 given by three consultant neuroradiologists. Incomplete data were found in 141. Forty-one percent were CT images and the remainder MRI. The majority of second opinions were requested by neurologists. Most of the remaining referrals were from neurosurgeons or the primary radiologist. There was a 13% major and a 21% minor discrepancy rate. The remaining 66% were in complete agreement. There was a mixture of overcalls, misinterpretation, and undercalls. There were similar rates of minor and major discrepancies in both CT and MRI. CONCLUSION: There is a significant major discrepancy rate between specialist neuroradiology second opinion and general radiologists. The benefit of a formal specialist second opinion service is clearly demonstrated; however, it is time-consuming.     

Patients Prefer Results From the Ordering Provider and Access to Their Radiology Reports

PurposeImaging results are generally communicated to patients by referring providers. Directly communicating results has been suggested as a way for radiologists to add value, though few studies have investigated patients’ preferences in this regard. The aim of this study was to determine patients’ preferences for receiving their imaging results.MethodsIn this institutional review board-approved study, adult outpatients undergoing CT or MRI at an academic medical center and an affiliated county hospital over a 4-week period (n = 2,483) were surveyed. The survey assessed patients’ preferred delivery method for radiology results and their understanding of radiologists’ education and role.ResultsA total of 617 surveys (25% response rate) were completed, 475 (77%) and 142 (23%) by academic medical center and county hospital patients, respectively. Among all respondents, the majority of patients (387 of 617 [63%]) preferred models of results delivery centered on the referring physician as opposed to the radiologist. Regardless of who verbally relayed the results, 64% of all respondents (398 of 617) wanted the option to receive a copy of the report, and 522 of 614 (85%) wanted to see their images. Among patients wanting copies of their reports, academic medical center patients expressed equal interest in mail, e-mail, and online portal options (33%, 31%, and 36%, respectively), and county hospital patients preferred mail (55%, 28%, and 17%, respectively) (P < .001).ConclusionsPatients prefer receiving their imaging results through their referring providers. Many patients would also like to view their images and receive copies of their reports, potential avenues through which radiologists could add value.     

Differences in Neuroradiology Training Programs around the World

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:No previous study compares neuroradiology training programs and teaching schedules across the globe, to our knowledge. This study was conducted to better understand international program requisites.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Data from 43 countries were collected by an e-mail-based questionnaire (response rate, 84.0%). Radiologists across the world were surveyed regarding the neuroradiology training schemes in their institutions. Answers were verified by officers of the national neuroradiology societies.RESULTS:While many countries do not provide fellowship training in neuroradiology (n = 16), others have formal postresidency curricula (n = 27). Many programs have few fellows and didactic sessions, but the 1- or 2-year duration of fellowship training is relatively consistent (n = 23/27, 85%).CONCLUSIONS:There is a wide variety of fellowship offerings, lessons provided, and ratios of teachers to learners in neuroradiology training programs globally.

The United States considers itself a leader in medical education and training among nations.¹ Generally speaking, American medical school, residency, and fellowship programs are considered globally as being well-structured, highly competitive, and outstanding in the quality of education and instruction. As of the 2013–2014 academic year, 185 radiology residency programs and 85 neuroradiology (NR) fellowship programs in the United States are voluntarily supervised by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). This private, nonprofit organization sets educational standards and periodically reviews their implementation within the respective graduate medical education programs.² In addition, completion of programs accredited by the ACGME is a prerequisite to becoming board-certified in diagnostic radiology and subspecialty certified in neuroradiology. Examinations are offered by the American Board of Radiology annually through the American Board of Medical Specialties. It oversees specialty and subspecialty certification in radiology and 23 other medical specialties in the United States.The educational path for an aspiring American neuroradiologist typically begins by matching in a first-postgraduate-year prerequisite clinical year (internship year) and an ACGME-accredited postgraduate year 2- to 5-year diagnostic radiology residency program.³ The first 3 years of residency focus on diagnostic radiology (postgraduate years 2–4) and include 9 core rotations in abdominal radiology, breast imaging, cardiothoracic radiology, musculoskeletal radiology, neuroradiology, nuclear radiology, pediatric radiology, sonography, and vascular and interventional radiology. In postgraduate year 5, residents may participate in subspecialty rotations of their choice.⁴ The trainees'' diagnostic experience in the different imaging modalities is assessed through a case/procedure log system, which is annually reviewed by the faculty of the program and the ACGME.⁵After finishing residency, graduating radiologists have the opportunity to start additional fellowship training within their discipline of choice if they desire subspecialty expertise.⁶ Contributing factors that promote the implementation of fellowship programs in radiology are the rapid development of new imaging techniques, the need for appropriate interpretation skills and expertise to compete in the job market, and the trend toward endovascular and percutaneous therapies.¹The first NR fellowship positions were offered in Stockholm and London in the 1950s and approximately 10 years later in New York (1960).⁷ Regarding neuroradiology, 2 fellowships are offered in the United States currently: diagnostic neuroradiology (DNR) and interventional neuroradiology (INR), with the latter, by ACGME regulations, requiring a previous DNR year. However, very few of the offered neurointerventional programs are currently ACGME-accredited, so this requirement is often not completed.Because there is a trend toward greater subspecialization in radiology globally, we conducted a survey to investigate differences in radiology training programs across the world with regard to the general curriculum, focusing on neuroradiology fellowships in particular. Therefore, departments in countries on all continents were asked to complete a standardized questionnaire about their training programs. Hence, differences in international educational structures could be revealed.     

Early Adoption of a Certainty Scale to Improve Diagnostic Certainty Communication

ObjectiveAssess the early voluntary adoption of a certainty scale to improve communicating diagnostic certainty in radiology reports.MethodsThis institutional review board–approved study was part of a multifaceted initiative to improve radiology report quality at a tertiary academic hospital. A committee comprised of radiology subspecialty division representatives worked to develop recommendations for communicating varying degrees of diagnostic certainty in radiology reports in the form of a certainty scale, made publicly available online, which specified the terms recommended and the terms to be avoided in radiology reports. Twelve radiologists voluntarily piloted the scale; use was not mandatory. We assessed proportion of recommended terms among all diagnostic certainty terms in the Impression section (primary outcome) of all reports generated by the radiologists. Certainty terms were extracted via natural language processing over a 22-week postintervention period (31,399 reports) and compared with the same 22 calendar weeks 1 year pre-intervention (24,244 reports) using Fisher’s exact test and statistical process control charts.ResultsOverall, the proportion of recommended terms significantly increased from 8,498 of 10,650 (80.0%) pre-intervention to 9,646 of 11,239 (85.8%) postintervention (P < .0001 and by statistical process control). The proportion of recommended terms significantly increased for 8 of 12 radiologists (P < .0005 each), increased insignificantly for 3 radiologists (P > .05), and decreased without significance for 1 radiologist.ConclusionDesigning and implementing a certainty scale was associated with increased voluntary use of recommended certainty terms in a small radiologist cohort. Larger-scale interventions will be needed for adoption of the scale across a broad range of radiologists.     

24/7/365 Neuroradiologist Coverage Improves Resident Perception of Educational Experience,Referring Physician Satisfaction,and Turnaround Time

PurposeTo quantitatively and qualitatively assess the impact of attending neuroradiology coverage on radiology resident perceptions of the on-call experience, referring physician satisfaction, and final report turnaround times.Materials and Methods24/7/365 attending neuroradiologist coverage began in October 2016 at our institution. In March 2017, an online survey of referring physicians, (emergency medicine, neurosurgery, and stroke neurology) and radiology residents was administered at a large academic medical center. Referring physicians were queried regarding their perceptions of patient care, report accuracy, timeliness, and availability of attending radiologists before and after the implementation of overnight neuroradiology coverage. Radiology residents were asked about their level of independence, workload, and education while on-call. Turnaround time (TAT) was measured over a 5-month period before and after the implementation of overnight neuroradiology coverage.ResultsA total of 28 of 64 referring physicians surveyed responded, for a response rate of 67%. Specifically, 19 of 23 second (junior resident on-call) and third year radiology residents (senior resident on-call) replied, 4 of 4 stroke neurology fellows replied, 8 of 21 neurosurgery residents, and 16 of 39 emergency medicine residents replied. Ninety-five percent of radiology residents stated they had adequate independence on call, 100% felt they have enough faculty support while on call, and 84% reported that overnight attending coverage has improved the educational value of their on-call experience. Residents who were present both before and after the implementation of TAT metrics thought their education, and independence had been positively affected. After overnight neuroradiology coverage, 85% of emergency physicians perceived improved accuracy of reports, 69% noted improved timeliness, and 77% found that attending radiologists were more accessible for consultation. The surveyed stroke neurology fellows and neurosurgery residents reported positive perception of the TAT, report quality, and availability of accessibility of attending radiologist.ConclusionsIn concordance with prior results, overnight attending coverage significantly reduced turnaround time. As expected, referring physicians report increased satisfaction with overnight attending coverage, particularly with respect to patient care and report accuracy. In contrast to some prior studies, radiology residents reported both improved educational value of the on-call shifts and preserved independence. This may be due to the tasking the overnight neuroradiology attending with dual goals of optimized TAT, and trainee growth. Unique implementation including subspecialty trained attendings may facilitate radiology resident independence and educational experience with improved finalized report turnaround.     

Best Reporting Practices for Multipart CT Scans: A Pilot Evaluation and Construction of the Optimal Analysis Methodology

PurposeCommunication failure between radiologists and referring physicians contributes to a substantial portion of medical errors. With a rising number of complex imaging orders and subspecialization among radiologists, the best method of reporting those results has yet to be evaluated. The aim of this study was to create, validate, and pilot a survey to reveal best practices for communication of radiologic findings, specifically addressing multipart CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis.MethodsA survey consisting of Likert-type and narrative response items was created, tested, and validated. It was then administered to physicians of five specialties (including radiology) at an urban quaternary care academic center and an affiliated community hospital.ResultsThe pilot survey results revealed that there was a small preference among both radiologists and referring physicians to have a single radiologist read in a single report for a multipart CT scan, rather than multiple subspecialist radiologists and reports. The findings were supported by narrative response explanations as well and demonstrate the importance of a rapid, clear, and cohesive image interpretation, despite the growing trend of radiology subspecialization. The results of the survey also confirmed its validity through an assessment with Messick’s five sources of validity evidence.ConclusionsThe survey’s validity indicates its generalizability to a future national survey to physicians of multiple specialties to further identify the preference of physicians on reporting of complex radiologic studies, in the setting of increased radiologic subspecialization.     

Pediatric Emergency Imaging Studies in Academic Radiology Departments: A Nationwide Survey of Staffing Practices

ObjectiveParticularly for pediatric patients presenting with acute conditions or challenging diagnoses, identifying variation in emergency radiology staffing models is essential in establishing a standard of care. We conducted a cross-sectional survey among radiology departments at academic pediatric hospitals to evaluate staffing models for providing imaging interpretation for emergency department imaging requests.MethodsWe conducted an anonymous telephone survey of academic pediatric hospitals affiliated with an accredited radiology residency program across the United States. We queried the timing, location, and experience of reporting radiologists for initial and final interpretations of emergency department imaging studies, during weekday, overnight, and weekend hours. We compared weekday with overnight, and weekday with weekend, using Fisher’s exact test and an α of 0.05.ResultsSurveying 42 of 47 freestanding academic pediatric hospitals (89%), we found statistically significant differences for initial reporting radiologist, final reporting radiologist, and final report timing between weekday and overnight. We found statistically significant differences for initial reporting radiologist and final report timing between weekday and weekend. Attending radiologist involvement in initial reports was 100% during daytime, but only 33.3% and 69.0% during overnight and weekends. For initial interpretation during overnight and weekend, 38.1% and 28.6% use resident radiologists without attending radiologists, and 28.6% and 2.4% use teleradiology. All finalized reports as soon as possible during weekdays, but only 52.4% and 78.6% during overnight and weekend.DiscussionA minority of hospitals use 24-hour in-house radiology attending radiologist coverage. During overnight periods, the majority of academic pediatric emergency departments rely on resident radiologists without attending radiologist supervision or outside teleradiology services to provide initial reports. During weekend periods, over a quarter rely on resident radiologists without attending radiologist supervision for initial reporting. This demonstrates significant variation in staffing practices at academic pediatric hospitals. Future studies should look to determine whether this variation has any impact on standard of care.     

Chest Radiograph Reporting: Public Preferences and Perceptions

PurposeTo assess public preferences and perceptions regarding negative chest radiograph reports.MethodsUsing Amazon Mechanical Turk (Amazon Inc, Seattle, Washington), paid US English-speaking volunteers completed an 18-question survey. Participants were presented with the same two chest radiograph reports—one each in a freestyle and structured format—but randomized to one of four impression statements commonly used in our community. Participants were asked about content comprehension and confidence in the hypothetical interpreting radiologist.ResultsOver 15 days, 5,155 eligible participants completed the survey (of 6,363 respondents). Most reported prior chest radiography (68.9%) or any imaging (93.8%). Of those who underwent chest radiography, 77.6% reviewed their reports. Participants indicated structured reports were easier to comprehend (P < .001) but no difference in perceived confidence in the radiologist with freestyle versus structured reports (P = .21). No differences in comprehension were noted between different impressions with either freestyle (P = .077) or structured (P = .083) reports. Participants indicated higher confidence in radiologists when structured reports indicated “no acute disease” versus “unremarkable” (P = .049). When impressions stated “no acute disease,” participants indicated they would be more likely to do nothing, versus “negative chest” for which they indicated a higher likelihood of taking some action (P = .013, P = .04). Participant responses were similar for subgroups who previously underwent chest or other imaging and previously reviewed their imaging reports.ConclusionFor negative chest radiographs, structured reports are better comprehended by the public and less likely to prompt unnecessary follow-up. As patients increasingly access their medical records online, radiologist reporting should consider patient needs and behavior.     

Leveraging the electronic health record to evaluate the validity of the current RVU system for radiologists

BackgroundRelative value units (RVUs) are utilized to evaluate physician productivity in many fields, including radiology. The goal of this paper is to use the electronic medical record (EMR) to evaluate whether the current RVU system allows for fair comparison between radiologists' time effort.Materials and methodsThe study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (IRB). Over 600,000 radiology studies with unique current procedural terminology (CPT) codes were evaluated, and after exclusion of studies interpreted in conjunction with trainees or interpreted using other software systems, a total of 241,627 studies remained. The median 25%ile, 50%ile, 65%ile, 75%ile and modal study ascribable times (SATs) for each CPT code was calculated across all radiologists. To evaluate the potential bias incurred using the current RVU system, the number of days required to achieve the Association of Administrators in Academic Radiology AAARAD 65%ile were calculated.ResultsRVU values were positively correlated with SATs (r = 0.69–0.71, p < 0.001). The variability in the radiologists' time to achieve the AAARAD 65%ile benchmark was highest for musculoskeletal imaging, and lowest for thoracic imaging. The discrepancy in the number of days of work required to achieve the AAARAD 65%ile benchmark was 141.1% (197.7 days) for musculoskeletal imaging, 107.5% (161.9 days) for neuroimaging, 89.6% (185.9 days) for body imaging, and 72.2% (84.0 days) for thoracic imaging.ConclusionThe current RVU system is not strongly correlated with radiologist effort measured by radiologists' time. A time-based metric is more representative of radiologist work. However, there is no perfect method to measure radiologists' work.     

Value of Second-Opinion Interpretation of Outside-Facility Breast Imaging Studies to a Radiology Department and Cancer Center

PurposeThe aim of this study was to estimate the physician work effort for formal written breast radiology second-opinion reports of imaging performed at outside facilities, to compare this effort with a per-report credit system, and to estimate the downstream value of subsequent services provided by the radiology department and institution at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network–designated comprehensive cancer center.MethodsA retrospective review was conducted of consecutive reports for “outside film review” from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2018. The number and types of breast imaging studies reinterpreted for each individual patient request were tabulated for requests for a 3-month sample from each year. Physician effort was estimated on the basis of the primary interpretation CMS fee schedule for work relative value units (wRVUs) for the study-specific Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code and study type. This effort was compared with the interpreting radiologist credit of 0.44 wRVUs per report. Subsequent imaging and evaluation and management encounters generated by these second-opinion patient requests were tracked through June 30, 2019.ResultsFor the 3-year period reviewed, 2,513 unique patient requests were identified, averaging 837 per fiscal year. For January to March of 2016, 2017, and 2018, 645 unique patient reports were identified. For these reports, 2,216 studies were reinterpreted, with an estimated physician effort of 2,660 wRVUs compared with 284 wRVUs on the basis of per-report credit. The range of annualized wRVUs for all outside studies interpreted and credited per specific CPT code was 3,135 to 3,804 (mean, 3,547). However, the institutional relative value unit credit received for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017, on the basis of the number of patient requests, was only 385, 375, and 345 wRVUs, respectively.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the substantial work effort necessary to provide formal second-opinion interpretations for breast imaging studies at a National Comprehensive Cancer Network cancer center. The authors believe that these data support billing for the study-specific CPT code and crediting the radiologist with the full wRVUs for each study reinterpreted.     

Surveying Fourth-Year Medical Students Regarding the Choice of Diagnostic Radiology as a Specialty

PurposeThe aim of this study was to survey fourth-year medical students, both those choosing and those not choosing diagnostic radiology as their specialty, regarding factors influencing their choice of specialty and their perceptions of radiology.MethodsA voluntary anonymous online survey hyperlink was sent to 141 US medical schools for distribution to fourth-year students. Topics included demographics, radiology education, specialty choice and influencing factors, and opinions of radiology.ResultsA representative sampling (7%) of 2015 fourth-year medical students (n = 1,219; 51% men, 49% women) participated: 7% were applying in radiology and 93% were not. For respondents applying in radiology, the most important factor was intellectual challenge. For respondents applying in nonradiology specialties, degree of patient contact was the most important factor in the decision not to choose radiology; job market was not listed as a top-three factor. Women were less likely than men to apply in radiology (P < .001), with radiology selected by 11.8% of men (56 of 476) and only 2.8% of women (13 of 459). Respondents self-identifying as Asian had a significantly higher (P = .015) likelihood of selecting radiology (19 of 156 [12.2%]) than all other races combined (44 of 723 [6.1%]). Respondents at medical schools with required dedicated medical imaging rotations were more likely to choose radiology as a specialty, but most schools still do not require the clerkship (82%).ConclusionsThe reasons fourth-year medical students choose, or do not choose, diagnostic radiology as a specialty are multifactorial, but noncontrollable factors, such as the job market, proved less compelling than controllable factors, such as taking a radiology rotation.     

From Being a Radiologist to Watching a Radiologist: Impact of Filmless Operation on the Training of Radiology Residents

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors performed this study to investigate the impact of changing from a film-based image interpretation system to one using digital image workstations on the training of radiology residents in the interpretation of radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected during a period when a conventional system of image interpretation with hard-copy images and multiviewers was used and during a period when digital image workstations were used. During each period, it was noted whether the first interpretation of the radiographs was performed by a radiology resident, by an attending radiologist, or as a group effort including both an attending radiologist and a radiology resident(s). In addition, it was noted whether a radiology resident or an attending radiologist dictated the report. RESULTS: The proportion of images first interpreted by the radiology resident alone decreased from 38% (53 of 139) when using the conventional system to 17% (34 of 199) after the switch to interpreting images on the workstations (P = .001). During the film-based period, radiology residents dictated 45% of reports (141 of 312), but during the workstation period, radiology residents dictated only 4% of reports (24 of 667; P = .001). CONCLUSION: The authors observed a decrease in autonomous participation by radiology residents in image interpretation and dictation of reports and an increase in "group reading" after the switch from a film-based system to a workstation system.     

Implementation and Impact of a Comprehensive Radiology Report Categorization System on Communication of Important Results

PurposeEffective communication of important imaging results is critical to patient care but difficult to accomplish efficiently. To improve communication at their institution, the authors introduced a radiology report categorization system (RADCAT) that organizes diagnostic imaging reports and uses automated communication systems. The study objectives were to (1) describe RADCAT’s design, (2) evaluate its implementation for appropriate imaging, and (3) evaluate the communication of important, nonurgent results with recommended follow-up.MethodsThis retrospective study was performed in a multihospital adult and pediatric tertiary referral academic health system. The intervention, a radiology report categorization system with five levels of acuity and IT-supported communication workflows, was globally implemented in November 2017. The primary outcomes were the successful implementation of RADCAT to appropriate diagnostic imaging reports and the successful communication of important, nonurgent results with recommended follow-up to ordering providers and patients by the radiology quality assurance team.ResultsOver 18 months after implementation, 740,625 radiology reports were categorized under the RADCAT system, with 42%, 28%, and 30% from the emergency department, inpatient, and outpatient settings, respectively. A random selection of 100 studies from the 23,718 total reports without RADCAT categorization identified 4 diagnostic radiology reports that erroneously lacked RADCAT grading. In 2019, of the 38,701 studies with nonurgent imaging follow-up recommendations, 38,692 (nearly 100.0%) were successfully communicated to providers or patients on the basis of quality assurance data.ConclusionsA comprehensive radiology report categorization system was successfully implemented across a multihospital adult and pediatric health system, demonstrating reliable communication of imaging results with recommendations for nonacute imaging follow-up.     

Traditional Text-Only Versus Multimedia-Enhanced Radiology Reporting: Referring Physicians’ Perceptions of Value

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate referring physicians’ perceptions of multimedia-enhanced radiology reporting (MERR) as an alternative to traditional text-only radiology reporting. MERR supplements text-only reports by embedding user-friendly interactive hyperlinks to key images and graphically plotting target lesion size longitudinally over time.MethodsOf 402 physicians responding to a web-based survey, 200 (50 each medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, neurosurgeons, and pulmonologists) practicing in the United States fulfilled criteria to complete an online survey with questions focusing on satisfaction with current text-only reports and the perceived value of image- and data-enriched reporting.ResultsThe mean respondent age was 46 years, with a mean of 15 years in posttraining clinical practice (85% men; 47% from academic medical centers). Although 80% were satisfied with the format of their current text-only radiology reports, 80% believed that MERR would represent an improvement. The most commonly reported advantages of MERR were “improved understanding of radiology findings by correlating images to text reports” (86%) and “easier access to images while monitoring progression of a disease/condition” (79%). Of the 28% of physicians with concerns about MERR implementation, the most common were that it was “too time intensive” (53%) and “the clinic workflow does not allow itself to view reports in such a fashion” (42%). Physicians indicated a strong increased likelihood of preferentially referring patients to (80%) and recommending peers to (79%) facilities that offer MERR.ConclusionMost specialist referring physicians believe that interactive image- and data-embedded MERR represents an improvement over current text-only radiology reporting. Compared with current report formatting, most would preferentially refer patients and peers to facilities offering more meaningful image- and graphically enriched reporting platforms.     

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.     

Radiologist Peer Review by Group Consensus

PurposeThe objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the consensus-oriented group review (COGR) method of radiologist peer review within a large subspecialty imaging department.MethodsThis study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Radiologist interpretations of CT, MRI, and ultrasound examinations at a large academic radiology department were subject to peer review using the COGR method from October 2011 through September 2013. Discordance rates and sources of discordance were evaluated on the basis of modality and division, with group differences compared using a χ² test. Potential associations between peer review outcomes and the time after the initiation of peer review or the number of radiologists participating in peer review were tested by linear regression analysis and the t test, respectively.ResultsA total of 11,222 studies reported by 83 radiologists were peer reviewed using COGR during the two-year study period. The average radiologist participated in 112 peer review conferences and had 3.3% of his or her available CT, MRI and ultrasound studies peer reviewed. The rate of discordance was 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4%-3.0%), with significant differences in discordance rates on the basis of division and modality. Discordance rates were highest for MR (3.4%; 95% CI, 2.8%-4.1%), followed by ultrasound (2.7%; 95% CI, 2.0%-3.4%) and CT (2.4%; 95% CI, 2.0%-2.8%). Missed findings were the most common overall cause for discordance (43.8%; 95% CI, 38.2%-49.4%), followed by interpretive errors (23.5%; 95% CI, 18.8%-28.3%), dictation errors (19.0%; 95% CI, 14.6%-23.4%), and recommendation (10.8%; 95% CI, 7.3%-14.3%). Discordant cases, compared with concordant cases, were associated with a significantly greater number of radiologists participating in the peer review process (5.9 vs 4.7 participating radiologists, P < .001) and were significantly more likely to lead to an addendum (62.9% vs 2.7%, P < .0001).ConclusionsCOGR permits departments to collect highly contextualized peer review data to better elucidate sources of error in diagnostic imaging reports, while reviewing a sufficient case volume to comply with external standards for ongoing performance review.     

What the Patient Wants: An Analysis of Radiology-Related Inquiries From a Web-Based Patient Portal

PurposeWith the development of patient portals, the opportunity exists to identify gaps in practice by analyzing priorities patients place on the receipt and comprehension of radiology reports. Our purpose was to describe the nature of radiology-specific patient information requests by analysis of patient-initiated messages submitted through a web-based electronic patient portal.MethodsInstitutional review board approval was obtained and informed consent waived for this HIPAA-compliant retrospective cross-sectional study. All patient-initiated messages submitted to the web-based patient portal at a large academic medical center between October 1, 2014 and December 11, 2014 were analyzed. Messages containing radiology-specific key terms including “x-ray,” “xray,” “xr,” “ct,” “cat,” “mri,” “scan,” “ultrasound,” “image,” and “radiology” were identified and messages categorized by content. The demographics of message writers were also analyzed. Diagnostic imaging studies performed during this period were tabulated by modality. Proportions were compared with χ² tests.ResultsDuring the time period studied, there were 1,597 messages from 1,489 patients inquiring about 1,609 examinations. Messages containing ≥1 radiology-specific keyword were significantly more likely to originate from women than from men (64% [946/1,489] versus 36% [543/1,489], P < .0001), with 53% of studies (52,322/98,897) performed on female patients and 47% (46,575/98,897) on male patients. The relative percentages of modality-specific patient inquiries were significantly discrepant (P < .001) from actual scan volume for some modalities (MRI: 38% [607/1,609] versus 11% [11,152/98,897], CT: 25% [400/1,609] versus 19% [19,032/98,897], plain radiography: 23% [368/1,609] versus 55% [54,497/98,897]). The most common inquiry was for imaging results (33% [521/1,597], P < .001); these were submitted a median of 5 days (range: 0-368 days) after imaging. The radiology turnaround time (between exam completion in the Radiology Information System and signoff on report) was 5 hours, versus 70 hours for referring provider review. Inquiries about radiation dose or radiation risk represented 0.1% (2/1,597) of all inquiries.ConclusionPatients submitting radiology-specific messages through an electronic patient portal are most concerned about imaging results, particularly those pertaining to advanced (CT and MRI) imaging studies.