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.     

Quality Measurements in Radiology: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Survey of Radiology Benefit Management Groups

PurposeAs the US health care system transitions toward value-based reimbursement, there is an increasing need for metrics to quantify health care quality. Within radiology, many quality metrics are in use, and still more have been proposed, but there have been limited attempts to systematically inventory these measures and classify them using a standard framework. The purpose of this study was to develop an exhaustive inventory of public and private sector imaging quality metrics classified according to the classic Donabedian framework (structure, process, and outcome).MethodsA systematic review was performed in which eligibility criteria included published articles (from 2000 onward) from multiple databases. Studies were double-read, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. For the radiology benefit management group (RBM) survey, the six known companies nationally were surveyed. Outcome measures were organized on the basis of standard categories (structure, process, and outcome) and reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.ResultsThe search strategy yielded 1,816 citations; review yielded 110 reports (29 included for final analysis). Three of six RBMs (50%) responded to the survey; the websites of the other RBMs were searched for additional metrics. Seventy-five unique metrics were reported: 35 structure (46%), 20 outcome (27%), and 20 process (27%) metrics. For RBMs, 35 metrics were reported: 27 structure (77%), 4 process (11%), and 4 outcome (11%) metrics. The most commonly cited structure, process, and outcome metrics included ACR accreditation (37%), ACR Appropriateness Criteria (85%), and peer review (95%), respectively.ConclusionsImaging quality metrics are more likely to be structural (46%) than process (27%) or outcome (27%) based (P < .05). As national value-based reimbursement programs increasingly emphasize outcome-based metrics, radiologists must keep pace by developing the data infrastructure required to collect outcome-based quality metrics.     

Informed Consent for Interventional Radiology Procedures: A Survey Detailing Current European Practice

Purpose: Official recommendations for obtaining informed consent for interventional radiology procedures are that the patient gives their consent to the operator more than 24 hr prior to the procedure. This has significant implications for interventional radiology practice. The purpose of this study was to identify the proportion of European interventional radiologists who conform to these guidelines. Methods: A questionnaire was designed consisting of 12 questions on current working practice and opinions regarding informed consent. These questions related to where, when and by whom consent was obtained from the patient. Questions also related to the use of formal consent forms and written patient information leaflets. Respondents were asked whether they felt patients received adequate explanation regarding indications for intervention, the procedure, alternative treatment options and complications. The questionnaire was distributed to 786 European interventional radiologists who were members of interventional societies. The anonymous replies were then entered into a database and analyzed. Results: Two hundred and fifty-four (32.3%) questionnaires were returned. Institutions were classified as academic (56.7%), non-academic (40.5%) or private (2.8%). Depending on the procedure, in a significant proportion of patients consent was obtained in the outpatient department (22%), on the ward (65%) and in the radiology day case ward (25%), but in over half (56%) of patients consent or re-consent was obtained in the interventional suite. Fifty percent of respondents indicated that they obtain consent more than 24 hr before some procedures, in 42.9% consent is obtained on the morning of the procedure and 48.8% indicated that in some patients consent is obtained immediately before the procedure. We found that junior medical staff obtained consent in 58% of cases. Eighty-two percent of respondents do not use specific consent forms and 61% have patient information leaflets. The majority of respondents were satisfied with their level of explanation regarding indications for treatment (69.3%) and the procedure (78.7%). Fifty-nine percent felt patients understood alternative treatment options. Only 37.8% of radiologists document possible complications in the patients chart. Comments from respondents indicated that there is insufficient time for radiologists to obtain consent in all patients. Suggestions to improve current local policies included developing the role of radiology nursing staff and the use of radiology outpatient clinics. Conclusions: More than 50% of respondents are unhappy with their policies for obtaining informed consent. Interventional societies have a role to play in advocating formal consent guidelines.     

System-Level Process Change Improves Communication and Follow-Up for Emergency Department Patients With Incidental Radiology Findings

The appropriate communication and management of incidental findings on emergency department (ED) radiology studies is an important component of patient safety. Guidelines have been issued by the ACR and other medical associations that best define incidental findings across various modalities and imaging studies. However, there are few examples of health care facilities designing ways to manage incidental findings. Our institution aimed to improve communication and follow-up of incidental radiology findings in ED patients through the collaborative development and implementation of system-level process changes including a standardized loop-closure method. We assembled a multidisciplinary team to address the nature of these incidental findings and designed new workflows and operational pathways for both radiology and ED staff to properly communicate incidental findings. Our results are based on all incidental findings received and acknowledged between November 1, 2016, and May 30, 2017. The total number of incidental findings discovered was 1,409. Our systematic compliance fluctuated between 45% and 95% initially after implementation. However, after overcoming various challenges through optimization, our system reached a compliance rate of 93% to 95%. Through the implementation of our new, standardized communication system, a high degree of compliance with loop closure for ED incidental radiology findings was achieved at our institution.     

Patient Experience With Notification of Radiology Results: A Comparison of Direct Communication and Patient Portal Use

ObjectivePatients increasingly access radiology results through digital portals. We compared patient satisfaction and understanding of radiology results when received through an electronic patient portal versus direct communication from providers.MethodsPatients were invited to participate in an online survey within 7 days of undergoing a radiology examination. Participants received one of two survey versions, based on whether or not they viewed results in the patient portal. The associations between method of result notification and satisfaction with notification timing and self-reported understanding of results were evaluated using χ² tests and logistic regression.ResultsOf 1,005 survey respondents, 87.8% (882 of 1,005) reported having received their imaging test results, with 486 (48.4%) first being notified through the patient portal and 396 (39.4%) via direct provider communication. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with timing regardless of whether they first received the results through the patient portal or through direct provider communication (88.8%-89.9%). Patients who first received their results through the patient portal reported a lesser degree of perceived understanding than those who first received their results through direct provider communication (26.7% versus 47.8%; P < .001). Patients were less likely to report clear understanding for advanced imaging (CT or MRI) than ultrasound or x-rays (29.3% versus 40.3% versus 38.2%, respectively; P = .02). Patient characteristics showed no association with understanding in multivariable analysis.ConclusionAs online portal release of radiology results to patients becomes commonplace, efforts may be warranted to improve patient experience when first receiving their radiology results online.     

Emergency Radiology: Current Challenges and Preparing for Continued Growth

The escalation of imaging volumes in the emergency department and intensifying demands for rapid radiology results have increased the demand for emergency radiology. The provision of emergency radiology is essential for nearly all radiology practices, from the smallest to the largest. As our radiology specialty responds to the challenge posed by the triple threat of providing 24-7 coverage, high imaging volumes, and rapid turnaround time, various questions regarding emergency radiology have emerged, including its definition and scope, unique operational demands, quality and safety concerns, impact on physician well-being, and future directions. This article reviews the current challenges confronting the subspecialty of emergency radiology and offers insights into preparing for continued growth.     

The Case-Based Radiology Teaching Conference for Residents: Beneficial Effect of Previewing Cases and Using Answer Sheets

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Radiology residents often experience the case-based teaching conference as an inquisition, during which the moderator painfully extracts observations, conclusions, and facts from a discussant while other attendees passively observe. This experience is frequently disliked by all participants. The author hypothesized that such conferences could be improved by previewing cases and using answer sheets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bimonthly, 1-hour, case-based skeletal radiology teaching conference was modified so that residents previewed 20 single-image cases for 45 seconds each while completing answer sheets. Directed by a moderator, residents then took turns discussing their responses. Attendees completed evaluation forms. RESULTS: Five conferences were evaluated, and a total of 81 evaluation forms were received. The average response rate per conference was 90%. The evaluations indicated that the content was appropriate (96% [78 of 81 evaluations]), the format helped learning (98% [79 of 81]), the new format was preferred to the traditional format (98% [78 of 80]), and more such conferences were desired (99% [80 of 81]). Evaluations also suggested that the requirement to commit to a diagnosis was beneficial, greater participation and engagement were obtained from all attendees, and more cases were discussed. CONCLUSION: Modifying case-based radiology teaching conferences by having participants preview cases and use answer sheets has positive educational benefits and is well received.     

The Use of Twitter by Radiology Journals: An Analysis of Twitter Activity and Impact Factor

PurposeMedical journals use social media as a means to disseminate new research and interact with readers. The microblogging site Twitter is one such platform. The aim of this study was to analyze the recent use of Twitter by the leading radiology journals.MethodsThe top 50 journals by Impact Factor were included. Twitter profiles associated with these journals, or their corresponding societies, were identified. Whether each journal used other social media platforms was also recorded. Each Twitter profile was analyzed over a one-year period, with data collected via Twitonomy software. Klout scores of social media influence were calculated. Results were analyzed in SPSS using Student’s t test, Fisher contingency tables, and Pearson correlations to identify any association between social media interaction and Impact Factors of journals.ResultsFourteen journals (28%) had dedicated Twitter profiles. Of the 36 journals without dedicated Twitter profiles, 25 (50%) were associated with societies that had profiles, leaving 11 (22%) journals without a presence on Twitter. The mean Impact Factor of all journals was 3.1 ± 1.41 (range, 1.7-6.9). Journals with Twitter profiles had higher Impact Factors than those without (mean, 3.37 vs 2.14; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference between the Impact Factors of the journals with dedicated Twitter profiles and those associated with affiliated societies (P = .47). Since joining Twitter, 7 of the 11 journals (64%) experienced increases in Impact Factor. A greater number of Twitter followers was correlated with higher journal Impact Factor (R² = 0.581, P = .029).ConclusionsThe investigators assessed the prevalence and activity of the leading radiology journals on Twitter. Radiology journals with Twitter profiles have higher Impact Factors than those without profiles, and the number of followers of a journal’s Twitter profile is positively associated with Impact Factor.     

Patient and Provider Feedback for Radiology Reports: Implementation of a Quality Improvement Project in a Multi-Institutional Setting

BackgroundRadiology does not routinely solicit feedback on radiology reports. The aim of the study is to report the feasibility and initial results of a multi-institutional quality improvement project implementing patient and provider feedback for radiology reports.MethodsA HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board–waived quality improvement effort at two institutions obtaining patient and provider feedback for radiology reports was implemented from January 2018 to May 2020.InterventionA two-question survey (quantitative review and open text box feedback) was embedded into the electronic health records for patients and providers. Text-based feedback was evaluated, and patterns of feedback were categorized: thoroughness of reports, error in reports, timeliness of reports, access to reports, desire for patient summary, and desire for key images. We performed the χ² test for categorical variables. P < .05 was considered significant.ResultsOf 367 responses, patients provided 219 of 367 (60%), and providers provided 148 of 367 (40%) of the feedback. A higher proportion of patients reported satisfaction with reports (76% versus 65%, P = .023) and provided more feedback compared with providers (71% versus 50%, P < .0001). Both patients and providers commented on the thoroughness of reports (12% of patients versus 9% of providers) and errors in reports (8% of patients and 9% of providers). Patients disproportionately commented on timeliness of reports (11%) and access to the reports (6%) compared with providers (3% each). In addition, 7% of patients expressed a desire for patient summaries.ConclusionReport-specific patient and provider feedback demonstrate the feasibility of embedding surveys into electronic medical records. Up to 9% of the feedback addressed an error in reports.     

Applying ‘Evidence-Based Medicine’ Theory to Interventional Radiology.Part 2: A Spreadsheet for Swift Assessment of Procedural Benefit and Harm

AIM: To design a spreadsheet program to analyse interventional radiology (IR) data rapidly produced in local research or reported in the literature using ‘evidence-based medicine’ (EBM) parameters of treatment benefit and harm.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Microsoft Excel^TMwas used. The spreadsheet consists of three worksheets. The first shows the ‘Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendations’ that can be assigned to therapeutic studies as defined by the Oxford Centre for EBM. The second and third worksheets facilitate the EBM assessment of therapeutic benefit and harm. Validity criteria are described. These include the assessment of the adequacy of sample size in the detection of possible procedural complications. A contingency (2 × 2) table for raw data on comparative outcomes in treated patients and controls has been incorporated. Formulae for EBM calculations are related to these numerators and denominators in the spreadsheet. The parameters calculated are benefit — relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat (NNT). Harm — relative risk, relative odds, number needed to harm (NNH). Ninety-five per cent confidence intervals are calculated for all these indices. The results change automatically when the data in the therapeutic outcome cells are changed. A final section allows the user to correct the NNT or NNH in their application to individual patients.RESULTS: This spreadsheet can be used on desktop and palmtop computers. The MS Excel^TMversion can be downloaded via the Internet from the URL ftp://radiography.com/pub/TxHarm00.xls.CONCLUSION: A spreadsheet is useful for the rapid analysis of the clinical benefit and harm from IR procedures.MacEneaney, P. M. & Malone, D. E. Clinical Radiology55 938–945.     

Hidden Curriculum and the Demographic Stoicism That Keeps Women and Minorities Away From Radiology: A Mixed-Methods Study of Medical Students

ObjectiveTo understand how women and historically underrepresented minority medical students perceive radiology as a potential career choice.MethodsMedical students representing a broad spectrum of radiology exposure from a single institution were invited to participate in a mixed-methods study. Participants completed a 16-item survey about demographics and perceptions of radiology. Ten focus groups were administered to probe decision making regarding career selection. The themes influencing women and historically underrepresented minority students are presented.ResultsForty-nine medical students, including 29 (59%) women and 17 (35%) underrepresented minorities, participated. Most participants (28 of 48, 58%) reported men outnumbered women in radiology. Female participants reported a lack of mentorship and role models as major concerns. Outreach efforts focused on the family-friendly nature of radiology were viewed as patronizing. Demographic improvements in the field were viewed as very slow. Forty-six percent (22 of 48) of participants indicated that radiology had a less underrepresented racial or ethnic workforce than other medical specialties. Minority participants especially noted a lack of radiology presence in mainstream media, so students have few preconceived biases. A failure to organically connect with the mostly White male radiologists because of a lack of shared background was a major barrier. Finally, participants described a hidden curriculum that pushes minority medical students away from specialty fields like radiology and toward primary care fields to address underserved communities and health care disparities.DiscussionWomen and historically underrepresented minority medical students perceive major barriers to choosing a career in radiology. Radiology departments must develop sophisticated multilevel approaches to improve diversity.     

Identifying Barriers and Facilitators of Success for Female Radiology Researchers: An Analysis of In-Depth Interviews With Nationally Recognized Leaders of the Field

ObjectiveWomen are highly underrepresented among leadership positions within radiology research, disproportionate to their underrepresentation in radiology overall. We sought to identify the causes and solutions of such disparity at the personal, organizational, and institutional levels among female radiology researchers who are leaders in the field.Subjects and methodsWe used purposive sampling to identify nationally recognized female leaders in radiology research. We developed a semistructured interview guide and conducted in-depth one-on-one telephone interviews with participants (n = 16) that ranged from 36 to 65 min. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed by two researchers trained in qualitative methods using Saldana’s first- and second-cycle coding method. Themes were identified using a grounded theory approach to identify meaningful patterns that addressed the research question.ResultsParticipants identified barriers to their professional development and success, including personal and professional obstacles often associated with work-life balance and the nonlinear nature of women’s careers because of caregiving responsibilities. Participants also identified facilitators of success that operated at the individual, organizational, and institutional level, such as purposeful networking, having an advocate, and participating in leadership events.ConclusionThis study represents the first effort to qualitatively capture the facilitators of success for nationally recognized female radiology researchers. Findings suggest that synergistic efforts can be undertaken by early-career female radiologists and their colleagues, national radiology organizations, and academic institutions to systematically enable the inclusion and participation of women. The field of radiology should consider how to work dynamically at multiple levels to implement the identified potential changes.