Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report

BackgroundThe risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsAn expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario.ResultsTwelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non–small-cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non–small-cell lung cancer.ConclusionsThere was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.     

Asymptomatic Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Standardizing Reporting Recommendations at a Large Multistate Radiology Practice

ObjectiveAlthough often asymptomatic at initial diagnosis, abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) require careful surveillance to prevent rupture, with rupture-associated mortality rates as high as 90%. The purpose of this study was to explore if a performance improvement initiative implemented across a large radiology practice successfully increased inclusion of best practice recommendations (BPRs) within the radiology report across the practice.MethodsAfter BPRs for asymptomatic AAA surveillance were developed, a structured reporting macro for follow-up recommendation was integrated into dictation software. Following a training period, inclusion of recommendations within the radiology report was monitored across 345 facilities within the practice. Performance was reported on scorecards distributed monthly. To measure practice improvement, inclusion of appropriate recommendation in radiology reports postimplementation was compared with pre-implementation data.ResultsDuring the period before AAA BPRs implementation, from 64,090 consecutive cross-sectional radiology reports reviewed during a 6-month period, 855 incidental AAAs (1.3%) were identified, with 783 aneurysms measuring 2.6 to 5.4 cm requiring imaging surveillance; only 17 (2.1%) included follow-up recommendations within the radiology report. Postimplementation, 2,641 of 148,807 cross-sectional imaging studies were positive for 2.6- to 5.4-cm AAAs requiring further management; 1,533 (58.0%) of these radiology reports included follow-up imaging recommendations (97.0% of which followed our AAA BPRs).DiscussionQuality improvement initiatives to develop BPRs for AAA surveillance and include these recommendations within the radiology report can be successfully implemented across large practices and are imperative to ensure imaging surveillance and avert AAA rupture.     

Point-of-Care Virtual Radiology Consultations in Primary Care: A Feasibility Study of a New Model for Patient-Centered Care in Radiology

BackgroundThe goal of this study is to assess the value of point-of-care virtual consultations in radiology.MethodsWe conducted an institutional review board–approved feasibility study of video-based radiology consultations in an internal medicine primary care clinic at a quaternary academic medical center. The study included 3 primary care providers (PCPs) and enrolled 43 patients. Inclusion criteria consisted of the following: age > 18 years, English speaking, recent radiology examination at our institution, and patient consenting to participate. Patients completed a pre- and postvisit survey. PCPs completed a postvisit survey. Primary study end points included the effect on patient and provider satisfaction, effect on patient experience and understanding of medical condition, and impact on PCP’s management decisions. Statistical significance was assessed using Fisher’s exact test.ResultsOf the enrolled patients, 93% (n = 40 of 43) indicated that they were satisfied with the virtual consultation visit. The PCPs were satisfied with the virtual consultation in 97% of consultations (n = 42 of 43). In addition, 88% (n = 38 of 43) of patients indicated improved understanding of their medical condition as a result of the virtual consultation, and 91% of patients (n = 39 of 43) were interested in similar consultations in the future. The participating PCPs indicated that the consultation was helpful in their management decisions in 83% of visits. Patient’s interest in receiving their imaging results from radiologist increased from 56% to 88% when comparing pre– and post–virtual consultation survey results (P = .03).ConclusionInitial experience with virtual radiology consultations show high rates of patient and provider satisfaction. Virtual radiology consultations have the potential to advance radiology’s value in care delivery.     

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.     

Percutaneous Access of the Modified Hutson Loop for Retrograde Cholangiography,Endoscopy, and Biliary Interventions

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to present the institutional experience of performing endoscopy, cholangiography, and biliary interventions through the modified Hutson loop by interventional radiology.Materials and MethodsA total of 61 of 64 modified Hutson loop access procedures were successful. This single-center retrospective study included 61 successful procedures of biliary interventions using existing modified Hutson loops (surgically affixed subcutaneous jejunal limb adjacent to biliary anastomosis or anastomoses) for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes in 21 patients. Seventeen of 21 patients (81%) had undergone liver transplantation. Indications included biliary strictures (n = 18) and biliary leaks (n = 3). The clinical success and complications were evaluated.ResultsThere were 3 of 26 modified Hutson loop retrograde biliary intervention failures (12%) before introduction of endoscopy and no failures (0 of 38 [0%]) subsequently (P = .06). Endoscopy or cholangioscopy was performed in 19 procedures by interventional radiologists. Retrograde biliary interventions included diagnostic cholangiography (n = 26), cholangioplasty (n = 25), stent placement (n = 29), stent retrieval (n = 25), and biliary drainage catheter placement (n = 5). No procedure-related mortality occurred. There was 1 major complication (duodenal perforation) (1.6%) and 12 minor complications (19%). In the 9 patients undergoing therapeutic interventions for biliary strictures, there was a significant decrease in median alkaline phosphatase (288.5 to 174.5 U/L; P = .03). There was a trend toward decrease in median bilirubin levels (1.7 to 1 mg/dL; P = .06) at 1 month post-intervention.ConclusionsThe modified Hutson loop provided interventional radiologists a safe and effective alternative access to manage biliary complications in patients with biliary-enteric anastomoses. Introduction of the endoscope in interventional radiology has improved the success rate of these procedures.     

Radiograph report style preferences of referrers at a district general hospital in the West Midlands,England, UK

IntroductionMany articles and guidelines have been published proposing suggestions for the optimal radiology report style; it is likely that different referrers will prefer different styles owing to a number of clinical variables. The aim of this study is to assess the x-ray report style preferences of referrers at a district general hospital.MethodThis electronic survey study used convenience sampling. An email invitation was sent to all referrers who had requested imaging examinations in the six months prior to the study start date. Participants were asked their opinions on the inclusion of recommendations and advice and to indicate their preferences of mock reports with combinations of the following; short/long, in-depth/brief and paragraph/bullet points. Manual analysis was undertaken in Excel.ResultsThere were 114 participants from the identified population of 356, giving a response rate of 32%. Nearly all participants find the inclusion of recommendations and advice to be useful (n = 109, 96%). Seventy-nine participants (69.3%) request skeletal x-ray examinations, and 100 (87.7%) request chest x-ray examinations. More than half of skeletal referrers (n = 42, 53.2%) and the majority of chest referrers (n = 45, 45%) prefer reports with short sentences, brief, bullet point format.ConclusionThe most preferred report style for skeletal and chest x-ray reports is short sentences, brief with bullet-point format. These findings add to the current knowledge base and provide different report style options. Tailoring report styles could optimise service users’ experience depending on clinical variables and might improve reporting workflow.Implications for practicePotential differences in style preferences may exist between community and hospital referrers. Consequently, focussed research regarding the report style preferences of GPs is recommended as an area for further research.     

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.     

Distal Radial Artery Access for Noncoronary Endovascular Treatment Is a Safe and Feasible Technique

PurposeTo evaluate safety and feasibility of distal radial artery (DRA) access for noncoronary interventional radiology procedures.Materials and MethodsAll interventional radiology procedures by means of DRA puncture from July 2017 to August 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Eighty-two punctures in 56 patients were included, mostly in male patients (84% vs 16%). Mean age was 67.8 years (range, 33.3–87.3 years); mean height was 172 cm (range, 142–190 cm); and mean weight was 83 kg (range, 43–120 kg). Procedural characteristics, technical success, and complication rates were gathered from the medical records and follow-up ultrasound when available. Prerequisites for DRA access were adequate radioulnar collateral circulation, sufficient radial artery diameter, and informed consent in patients initially intended for conventional transradial access.ResultsProcedures included transarterial chemoembolization (n = 34), yittrium-90 pretreatment angiography (n = 21), yittrium-90 administration (transarterial radioembolization; n = 20), and embolization of visceral organs (n = 7). Both 4-Fr (n = 35) and 5-Fr (n = 46) sheaths were used. Technical success of DRA access was 97.6%, with conversion to transfemoral access in 2 cases (2.4%). No major complications were reported as a result of DRA access.ConclusionDRA access is a feasible and safe technique for abdominal interventional radiology embolization procedures. No radial artery occlusion or other major complications were observed in patients who underwent follow-up ultrasound.     

Proctoring of New Emergency Radiologists to Promote Clinical Excellence and Ensure Quality of Care

PurposeThe authors’ institution provides 24/7 attending radiologist final interpretations for all emergency, urgent, and inpatient studies. As a supplement to the existing emergency radiology faculty, the institution relies on two groups of radiologists to provide final imaging interpretations after hours: radiology fellows (RFs) and newly hired subspecialty radiologists (NRs). For both groups, subspecialty services provide overreads the following day to improve the skills of the staff members and ensure clinical excellence. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical significance and rate of discrepancies between RFs and NRs.MethodsA retrospective review of all overreads from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2015, was performed. Discrepancy rates for RFs and NRs were calculated. Error significance for cases requiring addenda was categorized as follows: acute, likely malignant, indeterminate, unlikely to be of clinical significance, insignificant typographic error, or significant typographic error.ResultsIn total, 10,796 studies were rechecked, of which 1.9% (n = 205) required addenda, 3.6% (n = 384) were deemed addendum-optional, and 94.5% (n = 10,207) required no comments. There was no significant difference in cases requiring addenda (RFs, 1.7% [119 of 6,847]; NRs, 2.2% [86 of 3,949]; P = .11). Of the 205 cases requiring addenda, 21.0% (n = 43) were deemed to be acute, 4.9% (n = 10) likely malignant, 28.3% (n = 58) indeterminate, 32.7% (n = 67) unlikely to be of clinical significance, and 13.1% (n = 27) secondary to typographic errors (66.7% [n = 18] deemed to be significant).ConclusionsAfter-hours coverage with RFs and NRs allows high-quality final, actionable interpretations with low discrepancy rates and no significant difference between both groups for addendum-needed cases. The program strikes a balance between the need for timely interpretations and the need to continually monitor and improve the quality of interpretations through subspecialist feedback.     

Machine Learning Model Drift: Predicting Diagnostic Imaging Follow-Up as a Case Example

ObjectiveAddress model drift in a machine learning (ML) model for predicting diagnostic imaging follow-up using data augmentation with more recent data versus retraining new predictive models.MethodsThis institutional review board–approved retrospective study was conducted January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020, at a large academic institution. A previously trained ML model was trained on 1,000 radiology reports from 2016 (old data). An additional 1,385 randomly selected reports from 2019 to 2020 (new data) were annotated for follow-up recommendations and randomly divided into two sets: training (n = 900) and testing (n = 485). Support vector machine and random forest (RF) algorithms were constructed and trained using 900 new data reports plus old data (augmented data, new models) and using only new data (new data, new models). The 2016 baseline model was used as comparator as is and trained with augmented data. Recall was compared with baseline using McNemar’s test.ResultsFollow-up recommendations were contained in 11.3% of reports (157 or 1,385). The baseline model retrained with new data had precision = 0.83 and recall = 0.54; none significantly different from baseline. A new RF model trained with augmented data had significantly better recall versus the baseline model (0.80 versus 0.66, P = .04) and comparable precision (0.90 versus 0.86).DiscussionML methods for monitoring follow-up recommendations in radiology reports suffer model drift over time. A newly developed RF model achieved better recall with comparable precision versus simply retraining a previously trained original model with augmented data. Thus, regularly assessing and updating these models is necessary using more recent historical data.     

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.     

Radiologist Variation in the Rates of Follow-up Imaging Recommendations Made for Pulmonary Nodules

ObjectiveDetermine whether differences exist in rates of follow-up recommendations made for pulmonary nodules after accounting for multiple patient and radiologist factors.MethodsThis Institutional Review Board–approved, retrospective study was performed at an urban academic quaternary care hospital. We analyzed 142,001 chest and abdominal CT reports from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, from abdominal, thoracic, and emergency radiology subspecialty divisions. A previously validated natural language processing (NLP) tool identified 24,512 reports documenting pulmonary nodule(s), excluding reports NLP-positive for lung cancer. A second validated NLP tool identified reports with follow-up recommendations specifically for pulmonary nodules. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the likelihood of pulmonary nodule follow-up recommendation. Interradiologist variability was quantified within subspecialty divisions.ResultsNLP classified 4,939 of 24,512 (20.1%) reports as having a follow-up recommendation for pulmonary nodule. Male patients comprised 45.3% (11,097) of the patient cohort; average patient age was 61.4 years (±14.1 years). The majority of reports were from outpatient studies (62.7%, 15,376 of 24,512), were chest CTs (75.9%, 18,615 of 24,512), and were interpreted by thoracic radiologists (63.7%, 15,614 of 24,512). In multivariable analysis, studies for male patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.9 [0.8-0.9]) and abdominal CTs (OR: 0.6 [0.6-0.7] compared with chest CT) were less likely to have a pulmonary nodule follow-up recommendation. Older patients had higher rates of follow-up recommendation (OR: 1.01 for each additional year). Division-level analysis showed up to 4.3-fold difference between radiologists in the probability of making a follow-up recommendation for a pulmonary nodule.DiscussionSignificant differences exist in the probability of making a follow-up recommendation for pulmonary nodules among radiologists within the same subspecialty division.     

The Relationship Between US Medical Licensing Examination Step Scores and ABR Core Examination Outcome and Performance: A Multi-institutional Study

PurposeWe analyzed multi-institutional data to understand the relationship of US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step scores to ABR Core examination performance to identify Step score tiers that stratify radiology residents into different Core performance groups.MethodsWe collected USMLE Step scores and ABR Core examination outcomes and scores for anonymized residents from 13 different diagnostic radiology residency programs taking the ABR Core examination between 2013 and 2019. USMLE scores were grouped into noniles using z scores and then aggregated into three tiers based on similar Core examination pass-or-fail outcomes. Core performance was grouped using standard deviation from the mean and then measured by the percent of residents with scores below the mean. Differences between Step tiers for Core outcome and Core performance were statistically evaluated (P < .05 considered significant).ResultsDifferences in Step 1 terciles Core failure rates (45.9%, 11.9%, and 3.0%, from lowest to highest Step tiers; n = 416) and below-mean Core performance (83.8%, 54.1%, and 21.1%, respectively; n = 402) were significant. Differences in Step 2 groups Core failure rates (30.0%, 10.6%, and 2.0%, from lowest to highest Step tiers; n = 387) and below-mean Core performance (80.0%, 43.7%, and 14.0%, respectively; n = 380) were significant. Step 2 results modified Core outcome and performance predictions for residents in Step 1 terciles of varying statistical significance.ConclusionsTiered scoring of USMLE Step results has value in predicting radiology resident performance on the ABR Core examination; effective stratification of radiology resident applicants can be done without reporting numerical Step scores.     

Radiology departmental policy compliance with Swedish guidelines regarding post-contrast acute kidney injury for examinations with iodinated contrast media

IntroductionGuidelines concerning intravenous iodinated contrast media (CM) during computed tomography (CT) examinations are important to follow to minimize the risk for post-contrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI). The purpose of this study was to investigate the radiology departmental policy compliance with Swedish guidelines concerning PC-AKI.MethodsIn February 2020, an electronic survey was distributed to the responsible radiographer at 41 radiology departments in all university hospitals and medium-sized hospitals in Sweden. The questions focused on routines around renal functional tests, individualized contrast administration and handling of patients with diabetes mellitus taking metformin.ResultsThe response rate was 83%. Seventy-six percent (n = 26) of radiology departments calculated estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from serum creatinine prior to CM administration, but only 24% (n = 8) followed the recommendation to calculate eGFR from both serum creatinine and cystatin C. For acute/inpatients, 55% (n = 18) followed the recommendation that renal functional tests should be performed within 12 h before CM administration. For elective patients, 97% (n = 33) followed the recommendation to have eGFR newer than three months which is acceptable for patients with no history of disease that may have affected renal function. Approximately 80% of the radiology departments followed the recommendation that CM dose always should be individually adjusted to patient eGFR. Seventy-six percent (n = 26) followed the recommendation to continue with metformin at eGFR ≥ 45 ml/min.ConclusionCompliance with the national guidelines was high regarding routines around renal functional tests, dose adjustment of CM and metformin discontinuation. Improvements can be made in using both cystatin C and serum creatinine for eGFR calculations as well as ensuring renal function tests within 12 h for acute/inpatients with acute disease that may affect renal function.Implications for practiceThis study raises awareness of the importance of adhering to guidelines in healthcare. To have knowledge about the current level of compliance regarding PCI-AKI is important to maintain and develop effective clinical implementation of guidelines. The variation in practice seen in this study emphasizes the need of more effective implementation strategies to ensure adherence with best practice.     

A Standardized Radiology Template Improves Incidental Adrenal Mass Follow-Up: A Prospective Effectiveness and Implementation Study

PurposeIncidental adrenal masses (IAMs) are common but rarely evaluated. To improve this, we developed a standardized radiology report recommendation template and investigated its implementation and effectiveness.MethodsWe prospectively studied implementation of a standardized IAM reporting template as part of an ongoing quality improvement initiative, which also included primary care provider (PCP) notifications and a straightforward clinical algorithm. Data were obtained via medical record review and a survey of radiologists. Outcomes included template adoption rates and acceptability (implementation measures), as well as the proportion of patients evaluated and time to follow-up (effectiveness outcomes).ResultsOf 4,995 imaging studies, 200 (4.0%) detected a new IAM. The standardized template was used in 54 reports (27.0%). All radiologists surveyed were aware of the template, and 91% affirmed that standardized recommendations are useful. Patients whose reports included the template were more likely to have PCP follow-up after IAM discovery compared with those with no template (53.7% versus 36.3%, P = .03). After adjusting for sex, current or prior malignancy, and provider ordering the initial imaging (PCP, other outpatient provider, or emergency department or inpatient provider), odds of PCP follow-up remained 2.0 times higher (95% confidence interval 1.02-3.9). Patients whose reports included the template had a shorter time to PCP follow-up (log-rank P = .018). PCPs ultimately placed orders for biochemical testing (35.2% versus 18.5%, P = .01), follow-up imaging (40.7% versus 23.3%, P = .02), and specialist referral (22.2% versus 4.8%, P < .01) for a higher proportion of patients who received the template compared with those who did not.ConclusionsUse of a standardized template to communicate IAM recommendations was associated with improved IAM evaluation. Our template demonstrated high acceptability, but additional strategies are necessary to optimize adoption.     

An Electronic Health Record Order Entry-Enabled Educational Intervention Is Not Effective in Reducing STAT Inpatient Radiology Orders

ObjectiveAssess whether introducing order priorities with defined performance expectations in the electronic health record (EHR) reduces immediate inpatient radiology orders.Materials and MethodsThis Institutional Review Board–approved, retrospective study was performed at a 776-bed academic hospital conducting 164,000+ inpatient radiology examinations annually. Study period was January 2, 2017, to July 23, 2017; 14 weeks pre- and postimplementation of an education-only intervention including replacing urgent and as soon as possible priorities with imaging within next 6, 12, or 24 hours; imaging in the morning; and required for discharge priorities. STAT routine, timed, today order priorities remained unchanged. Institution-wide training immediately pre- and postimplementation was provided through two waves of e-mail and electronic tip sheets. Primary outcome measure was total STAT studies ordered of total radiology studies ordered per week (STAT rate). Secondary outcomes were non-STAT, non-routine (non-SR) order rate, and routine order rate. Paired t test and statistical process control (SPC) analysis were performed.ResultsSTAT rate pre- (22.5%, 7,150 STAT of 31,765 total; weeks 1-14) and postintervention (23.4%, 7,481 STAT of 32,034 total; weeks 16-29) remained unchanged (P = .37). SPC demonstrated no special cause variation. Postintervention non-SR rate increased 3-fold (2.7%, 859 non-SR of 31,765 total pre-intervention versus 8.2%, 2,615 non-SR of 32,034 total postintervention; 8.2%/2.7% = 3.0; P < .0001). There was an 8.8% relative reduction in routine rate postintervention (73.9%, 23,471 routine of 31,765 total pre-intervention; 67.4%, 21,579 routine of 32,034 total postintervention; (73.9% ? 67.4%)/73.9% × 100 = 8.8%; P < .0001).ConclusionImplementing ordering priorities with defined performance expectations in the EHR reduced routine but did not reduce STAT inpatient radiology orders. More stringent interventions may be needed to reduce unnecessary STAT inpatient radiology ordering to improve use of limited imaging resources.     

Concordance between a gastrointestinal consultant radiologist,a consultant radiologist and qualified reporting radiographers interpreting abdominal radiographs

IntroductionRadiographers can accurately report musculoskeletal and chest radiographs, but there is paucity of research comparing the performance of reporting radiographers (RRs) with consultant radiologists when interpreting and reporting abdominal radiographs. This study assessed interobserver agreement in the clinical setting between reporting radiographers and a consultant radiologist compared to an expert gastrointestinal radiologist in a District General Hospital. Major discordant reports affecting patient management were also examined.Methods126 abdominal radiographs reported by 3 RRs in clinical practice were randomly selected and reported by a consultant radiologist and index gastrointestinal radiologist. The reports of the RRs and consultant radiologist were compared against the reports made by the index radiologist for agreement by a colorectal consultant surgeon. All 126 reports were scored as being in either complete agreement, minor disagreement or major disagreement which would have resulted in a change to patient management.ResultsThere was no significant difference in overall agreement between the consultant radiologist (CR) and RRs when compared to the index radiologist (CR: n = 90/126, 71.4% and RRs: n = 94/126, 74.6%. p = 0.57). Major disagreements were found, but there was no significant difference between both groups (CR: n = 23/126, 18.3% and RRs: n = 17/126, 13.5%. p = 0.30).ConclusionRRs can report abdominal radiographs to a comparable level of agreement as a consultant radiologist in the clinical setting. There was no significant difference in reports deemed to affect patient management.Implications for practiceThis study addresses the gap in assessing the performance of RRs reporting abdominal radiographs. This small scale study indicates that radiographers could provide additional support in the reporting of abdominal radiographs. This would help to reduce radiologist workload and enhance the role of the reporting radiographer.ClassificationAgreement between reporting radiographers and radiologists interpreting and reporting abdominal radiographs.     

Lead-Dust Contamination on Radiation Protection Apparel

PurposeTo evaluate the prevalence of surface lead-dust contamination on radiation protection apparel (RPAs) in the radiology department and compare findings with those from other studies of RPA lead-dust contamination.Materials and MethodsA survey of RPAs was conducted between June and December 2021 in radiology departments at a tertiary-care university hospital. A convenience sample of RPAs located on wall-mounted racks outside the angiography suite and emergency department was surveyed. Surface lead dust on RPAs was detected using a rapid qualitative test.ResultsA total of 69 RPAs included full-length frontal lead aprons (n = 11), full-length frontal lead aprons (n = 25) with thyroid collars (n = 25), and thyroid collars alone (n = 8). Garments consisted mainly of a lead/antimony composite core with a 0.5-mm lead equivalency. One RPA failed radiologic quality inspection, and 8 garments were in poor or worn condition. The overall prevalence of surface lead-dust contamination on RPAs was 60.9% (95% CI, 49.1%–71.5%) and was significantly (P = .0035) higher on thyroid collars (78.8% [95% CI, 62.2%–89.3%]) than on lead aprons (44.4% [95% CI, 29.5%–60.4%]).ConclusionsA high prevalence of surface lead-dust contamination was detected on RPAs using a rapid qualitative test. There is currently no established safe level of lead, and these findings suggest RPAs be monitored frequently not only for physical defects limiting radiation protection but also for lead-dust contamination.