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

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

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.     

Shorter Perceived Outpatient MRI Wait Times Associated With Higher Patient Satisfaction

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess differences in perceived versus actual wait times among patients undergoing outpatient MRI examinations and to correlate those times with patient satisfaction.MethodsOver 15 weeks, 190 patients presenting for outpatient MR in a radiology department in which “patient experience” is one of the stated strategic priorities were asked to (1) estimate their wait times for various stages in the imaging process and (2) state their satisfaction with their imaging experience. Perceived times were compared with actual electronic time stamps. Perceived and actual times were compared and correlated with standardized satisfaction scores using Kendall τ correlation.ResultsThe mean actual wait time between patient arrival and examination start was 53.4 ± 33.8 min, whereas patients perceived a mean wait time of 27.8 ± 23.1 min, a statistically significant underestimation of 25.6 min (P < .001). Both shorter actual and perceived wait times at all points during patient encounters were correlated with higher satisfaction scores (P < .001).ConclusionsPatients undergoing outpatient MR examinations in an environment designed to optimize patient experience underestimated wait times at all points during their encounters. Shorter perceived and actual wait times were both correlated with higher satisfaction scores. As satisfaction surveys play a larger role in an environment of metric transparency and value-based payments, better understanding of such factors will be increasingly important.     

Radiologists’ Experience With Patient Interactions in the Era of Open Access of Patients to Radiology Reports

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate radiologists’ experiences with patient interactions in the era of open access of patients to radiology reports.MethodsThis prospective, nonrandom survey of staff and trainee radiologists (n = 128) at a single large academic institution was performed with approval from the institutional review board with a waiver of the requirement to obtain informed consent. A multiple-choice questionnaire with optional free-text comments was constructed with an online secure platform (REDCap) and distributed via departmental e-mail between June 1 and July 31, 2016. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous, and responses were collected and aggregated via REDCap. Statistical analysis of categorical responses was performed with the χ² test, with statistical significance defined as P < .05.ResultsAlmost three-quarters of surveys (73.4% [94 of 128]) were completed. Staff radiologists represented 54.3% of survey respondents (51 of 94) and trainees 45.7% (43 of 94). Most respondents (78.7% [74 of 94]) found interactions with patients to be a satisfying experience. More than half of radiologists (54.3% [51 of 94]) desired more opportunities for patient interaction, with no significant difference in the proportion of staff and trainee radiologists who desired more patient interaction (56.9% [29 of 51] versus 51.2% [22 of 43], P = .58). Staff radiologists who specialized in vascular and interventional radiology and mammography were significantly more likely to desire more patient interaction compared with other specialists (77.8% [14 of 18] versus 45.5% [15 of 33], P = .03). Only 4.2% of radiologists (4 of 94) found patient interactions to be detrimental to normal workflow, with 19.1% of radiologists (18 of 94) reporting having to spend more than 15 min per patient interaction.ConclusionsMost academic staff and trainee radiologists would like to have more opportunities for patient interaction and consider patient interaction rarely detrimental to workflow.     

Does Distance Matter? Effect of Having a Dedicated CT Scanner in the Emergency Department on Completion of CT Imaging and Final Patient Disposition Times

PurposeTo evaluate whether presence of a CT scanner in the emergency department (ED) improves ED workflow by decreasing time between imaging requisition and completion, and time to final patient disposition.MethodsInstitutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study conducted on 2,142 consecutive, acute thoracic, abdomino- pelvic imaging requests from 2 ED hospital campuses affiliated with the same academic institution, August 1 to October 31, 2012. Of these patients, only 1,696 had complete records and were used for analysis. One hospital had a CT scanner in the ED; the other was in the radiology department, 300 meters from the ED. Patients were stratified based on acuity of CT indication, interpreting radiologist training level, and time of day. Time points were compared between hospitals: (1) time of CT requisition receipt to time of scan initiation (2) time from scan initiation to time of preliminary report by resident or fellow, or verbally by staff to the ED; and (3) time of CT requisition receipt to time of final patient disposition.ResultsDecreases in time, favoring the institution with the ED CT scanner, are 16 min (P < .0001); 15 minutes (P < .0001); and 19 minutes (P < .04) for the 3 times, respectively. Significant differences were seen in morning and overnight shifts and for CT reporting times with higher radiology levels of training (20 min, P = .04; and 18 min, P < .0001 for staff and postgraduate year-5 residents, respectively).ConclusionsPresence of an ED CT scanner is associated with decreases in time to CT scan completion, radiologic interpretation, and patient disposition.     

Psychometric Validation of a Nonproprietary Survey of Patient Satisfaction for Use in Outpatient Radiology Centers

ObjectiveDemonstrate the psychometric evaluation process for and results from our radiology-specific patient experience measure.MethodsWe developed a survey to measure five dimensions of patient experience: (1) appointment, (2) reception, (3) registration, (4) procedure, and (5) facility. Each dimension included three to five questions. Each question was answered using a Likert scale (very dissatisfied to very satisfied). Data on procedure type, facility, radiologist interaction, health rating, survey length, and demographics were collected. The survey was implemented at 12 radiology offices. Analyses were conducted using responses from March 2018 to April 2019. Construct validation of the five dimensions was accomplished using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach and Guttman analysis.ResultsThe sample included 20,736 subjects. There was strong evidence for construct validity of the five dimensions of patient experience. The CFA achieved the best fit with the five-factor model relative to other models (comparative fit index: 0.98, standardized root mean square error residual: 0.0307, root mean square error of approximation: 0.0371). There was high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α 0.94, Guttman coefficient 0.93). Item analysis showed that no questions were consistently skipped. Eighty-two percent of participants said the survey was not too long. Patients reported high satisfaction on all dimensions of satisfaction across modalities and office sites.DiscussionThe CFA and internal consistency analyses provide evidence for this survey having good psychometric properties: construct validity for five dimensions of patient experience and high internal consistency among the items. This survey is intended to be used by, and to benefit, radiology practices and their patients.     

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.     

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

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

Patient expectations of radiology in noninteractive encounters

Open-ended interviews with 107 patients documented specific patient expectations of radiologic procedures during which there was no direct radiologist-patient interaction. Patient expectations could be classified into those related to the facility and those related to interactions with radiology staff. Among facility-related expectations, waiting time far outweighed all other concerns. Interpersonal skills were the predominant expectation of radiology staff. The role of the radiologist in fulfilling patient expectations was less clear. Only 10% of unprompted patients cited the radiologist as a factor in their expectations. When patients were specifically prompted to discuss the radiologist's role, communication skills, accuracy of interpretation, and interpersonal skills were the predominant concerns.     

Radiology Patient Outcome Measures: Impact of a Departmental Pay-for-Performance Initiative on Key Quality and Safety Measures

ObjectiveAssess impact of a multifaceted pay-for-performance (PFP) initiative on radiologists’ behavior regarding key quality and safety measures.MethodsThis institutional review board–approved prospective study was performed at a large, 12-division urban academic radiology department. Radiology patient outcome measures were implemented October 1, 2017, measuring report signature timeliness, critical results communication, and generation of peer-learning communications between radiologists. Subspecialty division-wide and individual radiologist targets were specified, performance was transparently communicated on an intranet dashboard updated daily, and performance was financially incentivized (5% of salary) quarterly. We compared outcomes 12 months pre- versus 12 months post-PFP implementation. Primary outcome was monthly 90th percentile time from scan completion to final report signature (CtoF). Secondary outcomes were percentage timely closed-loop communication of critical results and number of division-wide peer-learning communications. Statistical process control analysis and parallel coordinates charts were used to assess for temporal trends.ResultsIn all, 144 radiologists generated 1,255,771 reports (613,273 pre-PFP) during the study period. Monthly 90th percentile CtoF exhibited an absolute decrease of 4.4 hours (from 21.1 to 16.7 hours) and a 20.9% relative decrease post-PFP. Statistical process control analysis demonstrated significant decreases in 90th percentile CtoF post-PFP, sustained throughout the study period (P < .003). Between 95% (119 of 125, July 1, 2018, to September 30, 2018) and 98.4% (126 of 128, October 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017) of radiologists achieved >90% timely closure of critical alerts; all divisions exceeded the target of 90 peer-learning communications each quarter (range: 97-472) after January 1, 2018.DiscussionImplementation of a multifaceted PFP initiative using well-defined radiology patient outcome measures correlated with measurable improvements in radiologist behavior regarding key quality and safety parameters.     

Adherence to Radiology Recommendations in a Clinical CT Lung Screening Program

BackgroundAssess patient adherence to radiologist recommendations in a clinical CT lung cancer screening program.MethodsPatients undergoing CT lung cancer screening between January 12, 2012, and June 12, 2013, were included in this institutional review board–approved retrospective review. Patients referred from outside our institution were excluded. All patients met National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines Lung Cancer Screening high-risk criteria. Full-time program navigators used a CT lung screening program management system to schedule patient appointments, generate patient result notification letters detailing the radiologist follow-up recommendation, and track patient and referring physician notification of missed appointments at 30, 60, and 90 days. To be considered adherent, patients could be no more than 90 days past due for their next recommended examination as of September 12, 2014. Patients who died, were diagnosed with cancer, or otherwise became ineligible for screening were considered adherent. Adherence rates were assessed across multiple variables.ResultsDuring the study interval, 1,162 high-risk patients were screened, and 261 of 1,162 (22.5%) outside referrals were excluded. Of the remaining 901 patients, 503 (55.8%) were male, 414 (45.9%) were active smokers, 377 (41.8%) were aged 65 to 73, and >95% were white. Of the 901 patients, 772 (85.7%) were adherent. Most common reasons for nonadherence were patient refusal of follow-up exam (66.7%), inability to successfully contact the patient (20.9%), and inability to obtain the follow-up order from the referring provider (7.8%); 23 of 901 (2.6%) were discharged for other reasons.ConclusionsHigh rates of adherence to radiologist recommendations are achievable for in-network patients enrolled in a clinical CT lung screening program.     

Creating a Radiology Call Center Hotline and “HOT” Sites: Centralizing Radiology Questions and Cohorting Out-patient Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

IntroductionAmidst COVID-19 crisis, confusion exists over current radiology operations due to influx of new data and new protocols. In order to decrease confusion and reduce imaging facility related COVID-19 transmissions, we created a dedicated radiology COVID-19 call center and dedicated out-patient COVID-19 imaging sites (referred to “HOT” sites).Materials and MethodsWe created a central radiology call center hotline, staffed by our radiology technologists, to answer all radiology questions related to COVID-19 and help with scheduling exams. All out-patient x-ray exams became mandatory to schedule through the call center so proper COVID-19 screening could occur. If positive for COVID-19 symptoms, they are sent to “HOT” sites. Various statistical analyses were performed.ResultsA total of 2548 calls were received over 7 weeks with linear increase in calls during this period (R 2 = 0.17, P = 0.003). Most common reasons for calling were related to scheduling (n = 2336, 92%) and radiology operations (n = 145, 6%). At our main “HOT” site, from a total of 371 separate patient encounters by date of study, 72 patient encounters (19%) were COVID-19 positive at time of exam.DiscussionThis project provides efficient and reassuring radiology operations during an emergency situation by providing a single reliable point of contact and a source of truth for all facets of radiology. In doing so, we facilitate high quality patient centered care while protecting the health of our patients and staff.     

COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates: Impact on Radiology Department Operations and Mitigation Strategies

ObjectiveCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine mandates are being implemented in health systems across the United States, and the impact on the radiology department workforce and operations becuase of vaccine hesitancy among health care workers is currently unknown. This article discusses the potential impact of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on a large multicenter radiology department as well as strategies to mitigate those effects.MethodsWeekly vaccine compliance data were obtained for employees across the entire health system from August 17, 2021, through September 13, 2021, and radiology department–specific data were extracted. Vaccine compliance data was mapped to specific radiology job titles and the five different hospital locations.ResultsA total of 6% of radiology department employees were not fully vaccine compliant by the initial deadline of September 10, 2021. MR technologists and radiology technology assistants had the highest initial rates of noncompliance of 37% and 38%, respectively. Vaccine noncompliance rates by the mandate deadline ranged from 0.5% to 7.0% at the five hospital sites. Only one hospital required a decrease in imaging hours of operation because of the vaccine mandate.ConclusionDespite initial concerns about the impact of vaccine mandate noncompliance on departmental operations, there was ultimately little effect because of improved vaccine compliance after the mandate. Understanding individual employee and locoregional differences in vaccine compliance can help leaders proactively develop mitigation strategies to manage this new challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Implementing radiographic CT head reporting: The experiences of students and managers

IntroductionIn the face of growing demand in radiology, skill mix initiatives have sought to improve and expand service provision. Within the UK radiographer reporting is now widespread, although the growth in computerised tomography (CT) head reporting has not been as rapid as anticipated. The literature in this area is limited, but case studies have highlighted the successful implementation of this training through new radiographer roles in practice.MethodA cross-sectional survey was developed to elicit information from radiographers and managers on their experiences before, during and after post-graduate training in CT head reporting.ResultsSeventy one responses were received comprising 48 past students (n = 48/111; 43.2%) and 23 service managers (n = 23/67; 34.3%). Key factors for the development were personal continual professional development for students and departmental need for managers. Challenges during training included a lack of study time due to staff shortages and access to radiologist mentors. Only 48.8% of students responding have gone on to use the new skills in practice cited reasons include staff shortages, resistance from radiologists and increase in radiological staffing.ConclusionsThis qualitative study has demonstrated that those trusts who have implemented CT head reporting have evidenced perceptible benefits for both the department and individuals. Those radiographers who are successfully reporting have shown themselves to be highly motivated and persistent in their development.     

Imaging-Guided Core-Needle Breast Biopsy: Impact of Meditation and Music Interventions on Patient Anxiety,Pain, and Fatigue

PurposeTo evaluate the impact of guided meditation and music interventions on patient anxiety, pain, and fatigue during imaging-guided breast biopsy.MethodsAfter giving informed consent, 121 women needing percutaneous imaging-guided breast biopsy were randomized into three groups: (1) guided meditation; (2) music; (3) standard-care control group. During biopsy, the meditation and music groups listened to an audio-recorded, guided, loving-kindness meditation and relaxing music, respectively; the standard-care control group received supportive dialogue from the biopsy team. Immediately before and after biopsy, participants completed questionnaires measuring anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Scale), biopsy pain (Brief Pain Inventory), and fatigue (modified Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue). After biopsy, participants completed questionnaires assessing radiologist–patient communication (modified Questionnaire on the Quality of Physician–Patient Interaction), demographics, and medical history.ResultsThe meditation and music groups reported significantly greater anxiety reduction (P values < .05) and reduced fatigue after biopsy than the standard-care control group; the standard-care control group reported increased fatigue after biopsy. The meditation group additionally showed significantly lower pain during biopsy, compared with the music group (P = .03). No significant difference in patient-perceived quality of radiologist–patient communication was noted among groups.ConclusionsListening to guided meditation significantly lowered biopsy pain during imaging-guided breast biopsy; meditation and music reduced patient anxiety and fatigue without compromising radiologist–patient communication. These simple, inexpensive interventions could improve women’s experiences during core-needle breast biopsy.     

On-Call Radiology Resident Discrepancies: Categorization by Patient Location and Severity

PurposeTo report discrepancy rates for examinations interpreted by on-call residents overall and by resident training level, and to describe a novel discrepancy classification system based on patient location and severity that facilitates recording of discrepancy data, helps ensure proper communication of report changes, and allows our radiology department to assume responsibility for contacting discharged patients with non-time-dependent results.MethodsA HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board–exempt review of two years (January 2013 to December 2014) of discrepancy data was retrospectively performed for total number of examination interpreted, discrepancy rates, resident training level, and discrepancy categories. Most common diagnoses and means of results communication for discharged patients were also recorded.ResultsRadiology residents interpreted 153,420 examinations after hours and had 2169 discrepancies, for an overall discrepancy rate of 1.4%. Discrepancy rates for postgraduate year (PGY)-3, PGY-4, and PGY-5 residents were 1.31%, 1.65%, and 1.88%, respectively. The rate of critical discrepancies was extremely low (10/153,420 or 0.007%). A total of 502 patients (23.2% of all discrepancies) were discharged at the time their discrepancy was identified, 60% of whom had non-time-dependent discrepancies that were communicated by radiologists; 32.4% of these had addended results telephoned to a PCP, 43.4% had addended results telephoned to the patient, and the remaining 24.2% required a registered letter. Eight percent of patients with non-time-dependent findings were lost to follow-up.ConclusionsOur resident discrepancy rates were comparable to those published previously, with extremely low rates of critical discrepancies. Radiologists assumed responsibility for contacting the majority of discharged patients with discrepant results, a minority of whom were lost to follow-up.     

Improving Awareness of LGBTQ Patient Preferences Among Radiology Staff Members

BackgroundOur health system set out to improve services to patients from the LGBTQ community as a step towards decreasing disparities in care.Materials and MethodsA pilot education intervention targeting staff knowledge and skills regarding terminology with regards to gender fluidity and sexual orientation was designed and implemented.Results81 staff members participated and we found improvements in knowledge but there remain uncertainties that can be addressed in future training sessions.ConclusionsLGBTQ staff education in radiology is feasible and effective. Additional education interventions may be necessary to address persistent knowledge gaps. Effects on patient acre are yet unknown.     

Getting Rid of Patient’s Misconceptions About the Radiology Department Using Animated Video in the Waiting Room

Objectives:Patients often confuse the role of the radiologist with that of the technician. The aim of this study is to explore patients’ current perceptions about the radiology department and to evaluate how it’s possible to get rid of misconceptions using informative animated video in the waiting room.Materials and Methods:In this multi-centric study (UZ Leuven, ZNA Middelheim), 278 patients of all ages and education levels were surveyed in the radiology waiting room. 107 patients filled out the survey after watching an informative animated video (www.makeradiologyvisible.com). The remaining patients did not watch the video.Results:Half of the patients (86/171) in the non-video group believe the radiologist “performs the scanning”, compared to 19% (20/107) in the video group (p < 0.001). Patients who think their own physician will interpret the images is 36% (61/171) in the non-video group and 10% (11/107) in the video group (p < 0.001). In the non-video group, 32% (55/171) believe the technician performs the exam compared to 59% (63/107) in the video group (p < 0.001). After the video, 67% (72/107) of patients have more respect for the work of the radiologist, 52% (56/107) experience less anxiety and 65% (70/107) think the video is of added value to their visit. All items showed a better impact in high-educational subgroups.Conclusion:Animated informative videos help to increase patient knowledge about the radiology department. It moderates expectations, reduces anxiety, and ameliorates the overall experience. Although, the learning curve is steeper in highly educated patients, all educational levels benefit.     

Performance improvement using methodology: case study

The department of radiology at St. Luke's Regional Medical Center in Sioux City, IA implemented meaningful workflow changes for reducing patient wait times and, at the same time, improved customer and employee satisfaction scores. Lean methodology and the 7 Deadly Wastes, along with small group interaction, was used to evaluate and change the process of a patient waiting for an exam in the radiology department. The most important key to the success of a performance improvement project is the involvement of staff.