A Default Normal Chest CT Structured Reporting Field for Coronary Calcifications Does Not Cause Excessive False-Negative Reporting

PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of coronary atherosclerosis reporting before and after the implementation of a structured reporting chest CT template.MethodsA noncardiac, noncontrast chest CT structured reporting template was developed and mandated for department-wide use at a large academic center. The template included the statement “There are no coronary artery calcifications.” All noncardiac, noncontrast chest CT examinations reported over 3 days, 1 month after template implementation (structured template group), and from a 3-day period 1 year prior (control group) were retrospectively collected. Final radiology reports were reviewed and designated positive or negative for coronary calcifications. CT images were reviewed in consensus by 2 radiologists, who scored each case for the presence or absence of coronary calcifications, blinded to the original report. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson χ² and Fisher exact tests.ResultsSixty-five percent (69 of 106) of structured template group and 58% (62 of 106) of control group cases had coronary calcifications. Reports from the structured template group were more likely to correctly state the presence or absence of coronary atherosclerosis compared with those from the control group (96.2% vs 85.8%; odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3–13.1; P = .008). Structured template group reports were less likely to be falsely negative compared with control group reports (3.8% vs 11.7%; odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.0–10.8; P = .03).ConclusionsImplementing a structured reporting template improves reporting accuracy of coronary calcifications.     

Natural Language Processing for Identification of Incidental Pulmonary Nodules in Radiology Reports

PurposeTo develop natural language processing (NLP) to identify incidental lung nodules (ILNs) in radiology reports for assessment of management recommendations.Methods and MaterialsWe searched the electronic health records for patients who underwent chest CT during 2014 and 2017, before and after implementation of a department-wide dictation macro of the Fleischner Society recommendations. We randomly selected 950 unstructured chest CT reports and reviewed manually for ILNs. An NLP tool was trained and validated against the manually reviewed set, for the task of automated detection of ILNs with exclusion of previously known or definitively benign nodules. For ILNs found in the training and validation sets, we assessed whether reported management recommendations agreed with Fleischner Society guidelines. The guideline concordance of management recommendations was compared between 2014 and 2017.ResultsThe NLP tool identified ILNs with sensitivity and specificity of 91.1% and 82.2%, respectively, in the validation set. Positive and negative predictive values were 59.7% and 97.0%. In reports of ILNs in the training and validation sets before versus after introduction of a Fleischner reporting macro, there was no difference in the proportion of reports with ILNs (108 of 500 [21.6%] versus 101 of 450 [22.4%]; P = .8), or in the proportion of reports with ILNs containing follow-up recommendations (75 of 108 [69.4%] versus 80 of 101 [79.2%]; P = .2]. Rates of recommendation guideline concordance were not significantly different before and after implementation of the standardized macro (52 of 75 [69.3%] versus 60 of 80 [75.0%]; P = .43).ConclusionNLP reliably automates identification of ILNs in unstructured reports, pertinent to quality improvement efforts for ILN management.     

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.     

Facilitating Surveillance of Incidental Findings Using a Novel Reporting Template: Proof of Concept in Patients With Pancreatic Abnormalities

ObjectiveTo determine the surveillance impact of utilizing a discrete field in structured radiology reports in patients with incidental pancreatic findings.MethodsWe implemented a dictation template containing a discrete structured field element to auto-trigger listing of patients with incidental pancreatic findings on a pancreas clinic registry in the electronic health record. We isolated CT and MRI reports with incidental pancreatic findings over a 24-month period. We stratified patients by presence or absence of the discrete field element in reports (flagged versus unflagged) and evaluated the impact of report flagging on likelihood of clinic follow-up, follow-up imaging, endoscopic ultrasound, surgical intervention, genetics referral, obtaining pathologic diagnosis, and time interval between index imaging to various outcomes.ResultsPatients with flagged reports were more likely to be seen or discussed in a pancreas clinic compared with those with unflagged reports (189 of 376, 50.3% versus 79 of 474, 16.7%; P <. 001). Patients with flagged reports were more likely to get follow-up imaging than patients with unflagged reports (188 of 376, 50.0% versus 121 of 474, 25.5%; P < .001) and were more likely to undergo appropriate management of actionable findings compared with patients in the unflagged group (23 of 62, 37.1% versus 28 of 129, 21.7%; P = .036).DiscussionImplementation of a structured discrete field element for reporting of patients with incidental pancreatic findings had positive impact on surveillance measures and can be applied in other organ systems with established surveillance guidelines to standardize patient care.     

Physician Rating Websites: Do Radiologists Have an Online Presence?

PurposeGiven that patient satisfaction and provider transparency intersect on online physician-rating websites, we aimed to assess radiologist representation on these increasingly popular sites.MethodsFrom a directory of all Medicare participating physicians, we randomly selected 1,000 self-designated diagnostic radiologists and manually extracted their rating information from five popular online physician-review websites (HealthGrades, Healthcare Reviews, RateMDs, Kudzu, and Yelp). Using automated web “data-scraping” techniques, we separately extracted all radiologist and nonradiologist rating information from a single amenable site (Healthcare Reviews). Rating characteristics were analyzed.ResultsOf 1,000 sampled self-designated diagnostic radiologists representing all 50 states, only 197 (19.7%) were profiled on any of the five online physician-review websites. Only 24 (2.4%) were rated on two of the sites, and none was profiled on ≥3 sites. Of all 6,775 physicians listed on a single electronically interrogated site, only 30 (0.4%) were radiologists. With 28,555 (5.2%) of all 547,849 Medicare-participating physicians identified as diagnostic radiologists, radiologists were thus significantly underrepresented online (P < .0001). Although reviewed radiologists and nonradiologists were rated online by similar numbers of patients (1.13 ± 0.43 versus 1.03 ± 0.22, P = .22), radiologists were rated (on a low to high score of 1 to 10) significantly higher than nonradiologists (median 8.5 versus 5, P = .04).ConclusionsMost diagnostic radiologists are not profiled on common online physician-rating websites, and they are significantly underrepresented compared with nonradiologists. Reviewed radiologists, however, scored favorably. Given the potential for patient satisfaction scores and public domain information to affect referrals and future value-based payments, initiatives to enhance radiologists’ online presence are advised.     

Burnout,Professional Fulfillment,Intention to Leave,and Sleep-Related Impairment Among Faculty Radiologists in the United States: An Epidemiologic Study

ObjectiveTo examine the prevalence of burnout in faculty radiologists in the United States and to explore the relationship between burnout and professional fulfillment (PF), intention to leave (ITL), and sleep-related impairment by gender.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted through a voluntary anonymous, electronic survey of radiologists at 11 academic medical institutions participating in the Physician Wellness Academic Consortium between January 2017 and September 2018. Faculty radiologists who completed the survey were included in the study. The survey contained the validated professional fulfillment index and National Institute of Health Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System sleep-related impairment scale. Demographics of participants only included gender to protect anonymity. Sample t tests and χ² exact tests were used for analysis with significance level set at P < .05.ResultsIn all, 456 faculty radiologists (171 women) answered the survey. The overall prevalence of burnout was 37.4%, PF was 35.6%, ITL was 33.3%, and sleep-related impairment was 45.3%. Burnout was higher in female versus male respondents (44% versus 31%, P < .05), and PF and ITL were lower (30% versus 42%, P < .05, 26% versus 38%, P < .05, respectively). When faculty were stratified into burned out versus not burned out, PF was significantly lower in those with burnout (12% versus 52%, P < .05), and ITL and sleep-related impairment was higher (51% versus 24%, P < .05 and 75% versus 30%, P < .05, respectively).DiscussionHigher burnout was associated with reports of greater ITL and sleep-related impairment and lower PF. Female radiologists experience more burnout but less ITL than their male counterparts.     

Impact of a Structured Reporting Template on Adherence to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 and on the Diagnostic Performance of Prostate MRI for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of a structured reporting template on adherence to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 lexicon and on the diagnostic performance of prostate MRI to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (CS-PCa).MethodsAn imaging database was searched for consecutive patients who underwent prostate MRI followed by MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy from October 2015 through October 2017. The initial MRI reporting template used included only subheadings. In July 2016, the template was changed to a standardized PI-RADS-compliant structured template incorporating dropdown menus. Lesion, patient characteristics, pathology, and adherence to the PI-RADS lexicon were extracted from MRI reports and patient charts. Diagnostic performance of prostate MRI to detect CS-PCa using combined ultrasound-MRI fusion and systematic biopsy as a reference standard was assessed.ResultsThree hundred twenty-four lesions in 202 patients (average age, 67 years; average prostate-specific antigen level, 5.9 ng/mL) were analyzed, including 217 MRI peripheral zone (PZ) lesions, 84 MRI non-PZ lesions, and 23 additional PZ lesions found on systematic biopsy but missed on MRI. Thirty-three percent (106 of 324) were CS-PCa. Adherence to the PI-RADS lexicon improved from 32.9% (50 of 152) to 88.4% (152 of 172) (P < .0001) after introduction of the structured template. The sensitivity of prostate MRI for CS-PCa in the PZ increased from 53% to 70% (P = .011). There was no significant change in specificity (60% versus 55%, P = .458).ConclusionsA structured template with dropdown menus incorporating the PI-RADS lexicon and classification rules improves adherence to PI-RADS and may increase the diagnostic performance of prostate MRI for CS-PCa.     

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.     

Automated Structured Reporting for Thyroid Ultrasound: Effect on Reporting Errors and Efficiency

PurposeTo compare the effectiveness of different reporting templates using the ACR Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) for thyroid ultrasound.MethodsIn this retrospective study, four radiologists implemented ACR TI-RADS while dictating 20 thyroid ultrasounds for each of four different templates: free text, minimally structured, fully structured, fully structured and automated (embedded software automatically sums TI-RADS points, correlates with nodule size, and inserts appropriate recommendation into report impression). In total, 80 reports were constructed per template type. Frequencies of different errors related to ACR TI-RADS were recorded: errors in point assignment, point addition, risk-level assignment, and recommendation. Reporting times were recorded, and a survey about using the template was administered. Differences in error rates were compared using χ² and Fisher’s exact tests, and differences in reporting times were compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests.ResultsAcross all readers, errors were identified in 27.5% of reports (22 of 80) for the free text template, 28.8% (23 of 80) for the minimally structured template, 18.8% (15 of 80) for the fully structured template, and 0% (0 of 80) for the fully structured and automated template (P < .0001). Frequency of each error type (number assignment, addition, TR categorization, recommendation) decreased across the four templates (P < .0005 to P < .005). Median reporting times for the less complex templates were 210 to 240 seconds, whereas the median automated template reporting time was 180 seconds (P = .41). Radiologists subjectively preferred using the automated template.ConclusionA structured reporting template for thyroid ultrasound that automatically executed steps of ACR TI-RADS resulted in fewer reporting errors for radiologists.     

Factors Affecting Adherence to Recommendations for Additional Imaging of Incidental Findings in Radiology Reports

ObjectiveTo determine the rate at which recommendations for additional imaging (RAIs) of incidental findings on CT are adhered to at a tertiary-care medical center and what factors influence adherence.MethodsWe used a radiology clinical informatics tool (mPower, Nuance Communications Inc, Burlington, Massachusetts) to identify RAIs in reports from all CT examinations performed at a tertiary-care medical center during a 6-month period. For those studies in which the RAI was for incidental findings, we reviewed the patients’ charts to determine if there was appropriate follow-up of the lesion in question.ResultsThe overall rate of adherence to RAIs was 39.1%, and in patients with a same-institution primary care provider (PCP), 56.8% (P < .0001). Adherence was higher in studies ordered in the outpatient setting (P < .0001) and in patients with a same-institution PCP (P < .0001). Among patients with a same-institution PCP, adherence was highest for outpatients (66.7%), followed by patients seen in the emergency department (46.0%) and inpatients (36.0%). Among outpatients, adherence was highest with PCPs (67%) followed by internal medicine subspecialties (50%) and surgery (38%).DiscussionThe rate of adherence to recommendations for additional imaging of incidental findings was 39.1% in this study and higher for patients with a same-institution PCP, studies ordered in the outpatient setting, and in studies ordered by PCPs.     

A County-Level Analysis of the US Radiologist Workforce: Physician Supply and Subspecialty Characteristics

PurposeTo explore associations between county-level measures of radiologist supply and subspecialization and county structural and health-related characteristics.MethodsMedicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use Files were used to subspecialty characterize 32,844 radiologists participating in Medicare between 2012 and 2014. Measures of radiologist supply and subspecialization were computed for 3,143 US counties. Additional county characteristics were identified using the 2014 County Health Rankings database. Mann-Whitney tests and Spearman correlations were performed.ResultsCounties with at least one (versus no) Medicare-participating radiologist had significantly (P < .001) larger populations (197,050 ± 457,056 versus 20,253 ± 23,689), lower rural percentages (39.5% ± 26.5% versus 74.6% ± 25.6%), higher household incomes ($47,608 ± $12,493 versus $42,510 ± $9,893), higher mammography screening rates (62.4% ± 7.0% versus 56.6% ± 15.3%), and lower premature deaths (7,581 ± 2,085 versus 7,784 ± 3,409 years of life lost). Counties’ radiologists per 100,000 population and percent of subspecialized radiologists showed moderate positive correlations with counties’ population (r = +0.505-+0.599) and moderate negative correlations with counties’ rural percentage (r = −0.434 to −0.523). Radiologist supply and degree of subspecialization both showed concurrent positive or negative weak associations with counties’ percent age 65+ (r = −0.256 to −0.271), percent Hispanic (r = +0.209-+0.234), and income (r = +0.230-+0.316). Radiologists per 100,000 population showed weak positive correlation with mammography screening (r = +0.214); percent of radiologists subspecialized showed weak negative correlation with premature death (r = −0.226).ConclusionGeographic disparities in radiologist supply at the community level are compounded by superimposed variation in the degree of subspecialization of those radiologists. The potential impact of such access disparities on county-level health warrants further investigation.     

Characteristics of Radiologists Serving as Medical Malpractice Expert Witnesses for Defense Versus Plaintiff

PurposePrevious studies have reported higher qualification characteristics for anesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and otolaryngologists serving as defense (versus plaintiff) medical malpractice expert witnesses. We assessed such characteristics for radiologist expert witnesses.MethodsUsing the Westlaw legal research database, we identified radiologists serving as experts in all indexed medical malpractice cases between 2010 and 2019. Online databases were used to identify years of practice experience and scholarly bibliometrics. Using Medicare claims, individual radiologist practice types and mixes were ascertained. Radiologists testifying at least once each for defense and plaintiff were excluded from our defense-only versus plaintiff-only comparative analysis.ResultsInitial Boolean searches yielded 1,042 potential cases; subsequent manual review identified 179 radiologists testifying in 231 lawsuits: 143 testified in one case (58 defense, 85 plaintiff) and 36 testified in multiple cases (10 defense-only, 14 plaintiff-only, 12 both). The 68 defense-only experts had fewer years of practice experience than the 99 plaintiff-only experts (28.3 versus 31.8 years, P = .02), but the two groups were otherwise similar in both practice type (44.6% versus 54.9% academic, P = .62) and mix (63.8% versus 65.8% practiced as subspecialists, P = .37) and as well as numbers of publications (60.5 versus 62.8, P = .86), citations (1,994.1 versus 2,309.2, P = .56), and h-indices (17.2 versus 16.8, P = .89).ConclusionsIn contrast to other specialists, radiologists serving as medical malpractice expert witnesses for defense and plaintiff display similar qualifications across various characteristics. Published practice parameter guidelines and experts’ ability to blindly review archived original images might together explain this interspecialty discordance.     

Variation in Radiologists’ Follow-Up Imaging Recommendations for Small Cystic Pancreatic Lesions

ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the incidence, identify imaging and patient factors, and measure individual radiologist variation associated with follow-up recommendations for small focal cystic pancreatic lesions (FCPLs), a common incidental imaging finding.MethodsThis institutional review board–approved retrospective study analyzed 146,709 reports from abdominal CTs and MRIs performed in a large academic hospital from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018. A trained natural language processing tool identified 4,345 reports with FCPLs, which were manually reviewed to identify those containing one or more <1.5-cm pancreatic cysts. For these patients, patient, lesion, and radiologist features and follow-up recommendations for FCPL were extracted. A nonlinear random-effects model estimated degree of variation in follow-up recommendations across radiologists at department and division levels.ResultsOf 2,872 reports with FCPLs < 1.5 cm, 708 (24.7%) had FCPL-related follow-up recommendations. Average patient age was 67 years (SD ± 11). In all, 1,721 (60.0%) reports were for female patients; 59.3% of patients had only one cyst. In multivariable analysis, older patients had slightly lower follow-up recommendation rates (odds ratio [OR]: 0.98 [0.98-1.00] per additional year), and lesions associated with main duct dilatation and septation were more likely to have a follow-up recommendation (ORs: 1.93 [1.11-3.36] and 2.88 [1.89-4.38], respectively). Radiologist years in practice (P = .51), trainee presence (P = .21), and radiologist gender (P = .52) were not associated with increased follow-up recommendations. There was significant interradiologist variation in the Abdominal Imaging Division (P = .04), but not in Emergency Radiology (P = .31) or Cancer Imaging Divisions (P = .29).DiscussionInterradiologist variation significantly contributes to variability in follow-up imaging recommendations for FCPLs.     

Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease Focused Panel Survey on Clinical Utilization of Incidental Pancreatic Cyst Management Recommendations and Template Reporting

ObjectiveTo assess current practice patterns with respect to protocols used for incidental pancreatic cyst follow-up, management guidelines, and template reporting.MethodsThe Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease Focused Panel on intraductal pancreatic neoplasms distributed an anonymous 14-question survey to its members in June 2018 that focused on current utilization of incidental pancreatic cyst guidelines, protocols, and template reporting.ResultsAmong the 1,390 email invitations, 323 responded, and 94.7% (306 of 323) completed all questions. Respondents were mainly radiologists (93.8%, 303 of 323) from academic institutions (74.7%, 227 of 304) in North America (93.7%, 286 of 305). Of respondents, 42.5% (136 of 320) preferred 2017 ACR recommendations, 17.8% (57 of 320) homegrown systems, 15.0% (48 of 320) Fukuoka guidelines, and 7.8% (25 of 320) American Gastroenterological Association guidelines. The majority (68.7%, 222 of 323) agreed or strongly agreed that developing a single international consensus recommendation for management was important, and most radiologists preferred to include them in reports (231 of 322, 71.7%); yet only half included recommendations in >75% of reports (161 of 321). MR cholangiopancreatography was the modality of choice for follow-up of <2.5 cm cysts. Intravenous contrast was routinely used by 69.7% (212 of 304). Standardized reporting templates were rarely used in practice (12.8% 39 of 306).ConclusionsNearly 7 of 10 radiologists desire a unified international consensus recommendation for management of incidental cystic pancreatic lesions; ACR 2017 recommendations are most commonly used, followed by homegrown systems and Fukuoka guidelines. The majority of radiologists routinely use MR cholangiopancreatography with intravenous contrast for follow-up of incidental cystic lesions, but template reporting is rarely used.     

MRI reporting by radiographers: Findings of an accredited postgraduate programme

AimTo analyse the objective structured examination (OSE) results of the first three cohorts of radiographers (n = 39) who completed an accredited postgraduate certificate (PgC) programme in reporting of general magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) investigations and to compare the agreement rates with those demonstrated for a small group of consultant radiologists.MethodForty MRI investigations were used in the OSE which included the following anatomical areas and abnormal appearances: knee; meniscal/ligament injuries, bone bruises, effusions and osteochondral defects; lumbar spine: intervertebral disc morphology, vertebral collapse, tumours (bone and soft tissue), spinal stenosis and/or nerve root involvement; internal auditory meati (IAM): acoustic neuroma. Incidental findings included maxillary polyp, arachnoid cyst, renal cyst, hydroureter, pleural effusion and metastases (adrenal, lung, perirenal and/or thoracic spine). Sensitivity, specificity and total percentage agreement rates were calculated for all radiographers (n = 39) using all reports (n = 1560). A small representative subgroup of reports (n = 27) was compared to the three consultant radiologists' reports which were produced when constructing the OSE. Kappa values were estimated to measure agreement in four groups: consultant radiologists only; radiographers and each of the consultant radiologists independently.ResultsThe sensitivity, specificity and agreement rates for the three cohorts (combined) of radiographers were 99.0%, 99.0% and 89.2%, respectively. For the majority (5/9) of anatomical areas and/or pathological categories no significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between the mean Kappa scores (K = 0.47–0.76) for different groups of observers, whether radiographers were included in the group analysis or not. Where differences were apparent, this was in cases (4/9) where the variation was either not greater than found between radiologists and/or of no clinical significance. These results suggest therefore that in an academic setting, these groups of radiographers have the ability to correctly identify normal investigations and are able to provide a report on the abnormal appearances to a high standard. Further work is required to confirm the clinical application of these findings.     

The Effect of Computer-Assisted Reporting on Interreader Variability of Lumbar Spine MRI Degenerative Findings: Five Readers With 30 Disc Levels

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess differences in interreader variability among radiologists after the implementation of a computer-assisted reporting (CAR) tool for the interpretation of degenerative disc disease on lumbar spine MRI.MethodsThirty lumbar spine MRI examinations were selected from the radiology database. Five fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists evaluated each L4-L5 disc in a blinded fashion and reported the findings using a traditional free dictation approach. One month later, they reinterpreted the same discs using a web browser–based CAR tool in the same blinded fashion. The degrees of central canal stenosis, neural foraminal stenosis, and facet joint osteoarthritis; presence or absence of lateral recess stenosis; types of disc bulge or herniation; and herniation location using both methods were recorded. Percentage disagreement among the radiologists for each variable was calculated and compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.ResultsThere was a statistically significant decrease among the five radiologists in percentage disagreement for neural foraminal stenosis (46% versus 35%, P = .0146) and facet joint osteoarthritis (45% and 22%, P < .0001) for reports created by free dictation compared with those created using the CAR tool. There was no statistically significant difference in interreader variability for the assessment of central canal stenosis, lateral recess effacement, disc herniation, disc bulge, or herniation location.ConclusionsImplementation of a CAR tool for the interpretation of degenerative changes on lumbar spine MRI decreases interreader variability in the assessment of neural foraminal stenosis and facet joint osteoarthritis.     

Large-Scale Implementation of Structured Reporting of Adnexal Masses on Ultrasound

PurposeThe aim of this article is to describe the development and implementation of structured reporting of adnexal mass findings on pelvic ultrasound in a large integrated health care delivery system.MethodsA structured reporting system that includes standardized terminology for describing adnexal masses on ultrasound was developed by a multidisciplinary team of radiologists, gynecologists, and gynecologic oncologists on the basis of literature review and internal data. The system uses a reporting template that requires radiologists to assign abnormal adnexal masses to one of five possible categories on the basis of standardized criteria: category 0, 1, 2, or 3 for masses <10 cm, to reflect increasing concern for malignancy, and category X for masses >10 cm. Unique predefined hashtags were linked to each category to enable electronic data extraction, and a hard stop feature was installed that prevents reports from being finalized without a category designation. In 2014, after a 3-month pilot study, large-scale implementation was supported by an educational campaign consisting of web-based conferences, e-mail announcements, and local presentations. Clinical management recommendations on the basis of category and other clinical factors were provided in a separate practice resource for clinicians.ResultsAnalysis of adherence revealed that 93% of the approximately 12,000 reports describing abnormal adnexal masses in 2016 included category designations. Feedback from referring providers via an anonymous survey indicated high levels of satisfaction with reports.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary collaboration and leveraging of technology enabled large-scale implementation of structured reporting with high levels of adherence among radiologists and improved satisfaction among referring providers.     

Historic Physician Quality and Reporting System Reporting by Radiologists: A Wake-up Call to Avoid Penalties Under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA)

PurposeThe Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) Quality performance category is the successor to the Physician Quality and Reporting System (PQRS) program and now contributes to physicians’ income adjustments based upon performance rates calculated for a minimum of six measures. We assess radiologists’ frequency of reporting PQRS measures as a marker of preparedness for MACRA.MethodsMedicare-participating radiologists were randomly searched through the Physician Compare website until identifying 1,000 radiologists who reported at least one PQRS measure. Associations were explored between the number of reported measures and radiologist characteristics.ResultsFor PQRS-reporting radiologists, the number of reported PQRS measures was 1 (25.2%), 2 (27.3%), 3 (18.2%), 4 (19.3%), 5 (8.3%), and 6 (1.7%). The most commonly reported measures were “documenting radiation exposure time for procedures using fluoroscopy” (64.3%) and “accurate measurement of carotid artery narrowing” (56.8%). Reporting at least two measures was significantly (P < .001) more likely for nonacademic (77.3%) versus academic (44.9%) radiologists, generalists (82.7%) versus subspecialists (59.1%), and radiologists in smaller (≤9 members) (84.7%) versus larger (≥100 members) (39.7%) practices. Reporting six measures was significantly (P < .05) more likely for generalists (2.6%) versus subspecialists (0.4%).ConclusionMost PQRS-reporting radiologists reported only one or two measures, well below MACRA’s requirement of six. Radiologists continuing such reporting levels will likely be disadvantaged in terms of potential payment adjustments under MACRA. Lower reporting rates for academic and subspecialized radiologists, as well as those in larger practices, may relate to such radiologists’ reliance on their hospitals or networks for PQRS reporting. Qualified clinical data registries should be embraced to facilitate more robust measure reporting.