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.     

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.     

Impact of Patient-Centered Care on the Patient Experience in Nuclear Medicine

ObjectiveTo quantify the impact of direct patient-physician interaction within a nuclear medicine pretherapy consultation clinic on the patient experience.MethodsPatients were asked to complete a survey before and after meeting with the nuclear medicine physician. During each visit, the physician provided disease-specific information, discussed the planned therapy, answered questions, and provided tip sheets and checklists to prepare the patient for therapy.ResultsThirty-eight patients were included in the analysis. Before consultation, 17 patients (44.7%) were “somewhat” or “extremely” familiar with the term “nuclear medicine doctor,” whereas after the consultation, 33 patients (86.8%) were “somewhat” or “extremely” familiar with the term “nuclear medicine doctor” (P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (37.1%) felt they had either no understanding or a vague understanding of the therapy and no understanding of the plan for follow-up before the consultation, whereas 2 patients (5.4%) chose this response after the consultation (P < 0.001). More patients responded that they felt “generally” or “perfectly calm” toward the therapy overall after their consultation: 26 patients (68.4%) before vs 34 patients (91.9%) after consultation (P < 0.001).DiscussionPatient- and family-centered care in radiology includes direct physician participation in care delivery. In this report, we evaluate and measure the impact of our nuclear medicine pretherapy consultation clinic on the patient experience. We demonstrate significant impact of direct patient-physician encounters on patient anxiety, patient knowledge of the role of the nuclear medicine physician, and overall patient understanding of their treatment plan.     

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.     

Understanding Why Patients No-Show: Observations of 2.9 Million Outpatient Imaging Visits Over 16 Years

PurposeTo understand why patients “no-show” for imaging appointments, and to provide new insights for improving resource utilization.Materials and MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of nearly 2.9 million outpatient examinations in our radiology information system from 2000 to 2015 at our multihospital academic institution. No-show visits were identified by the “reason code” entry “NOSHOW” in our radiology information system. We restricted data to radiography, CT, mammography, MRI, ultrasound, and nuclear medicine examinations that included all studied variables. These variables included modality, patient age, appointment time, day of week, and scheduling lead time. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with no-show visits.ResultsOut of 2,893,626 patient visits that met our inclusion criteria, there were 94,096 no-shows during the 16-year period. Rates of no-show visits varied from 3.36% in 2000 to 2.26% in 2015. The effect size for no-shows was strongest for modality and scheduling lead time. Mammography had the highest modality no-show visit rate of 6.99% (odds ratio [OR] 5.38, P < .001) compared with the lowest modality rate of 1.25% in radiography. Scheduling lead time greater than 6 months was associated with more no-show visits than scheduling within 1 week (OR 3.18, P < .001). Patients 60 years and older were less likely to miss imaging appointments than patients under 40 (OR 0.70, P < .001). Mondays and Saturdays had significantly higher rates of no-show than Sundays (OR 1.52 and 1.51, P < .001).ConclusionModality type and scheduling lead time were the most predictive factors of no-show. This may be used to guide new interventions such as targeted reminders and flexible scheduling.     

Radiology Practices Employing Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants: Characteristics and Trends From 2017 Through 2019

PurposeThe number and roles of US nonphysician practitioners (NPPs) have expanded considerably, but little is known about their use by radiology practices. The authors assessed characteristics and trends of radiology practices employing Medicare-recognized NPPs.MethodsUsing Medicare databases from 2017 through 2019, the authors mapped all nurse practitioners and physician assistants (together “NPPs”) to employer groups for which all physicians were radiologists (“radiology practices”). Practices were characterized by size, geography, and radiologist characteristics. Temporal changes were assessed, and NPP employment likelihood was estimated using multivariate logistic regression modeling.ResultsAs the number of US radiology practices declined by 36.5% (from 2,643 to 1,679) between 2017 and 2019, the number employing NPPs increased by 10.5% (from 228 [8.6%] to 252 [15.0%]). The number of radiologists in NPP-employing practices increased by 10.4% (from 6,596 [35.1%] to 7,282 [40.0%]) as the number of radiology-employed NPPs increased by 17.5% (from 588 to 691). Practices were more likely to employ NPPs when medium (odds ratio [OR], 1.31) or large (OR, 1.25) in size, when urban located (OR, 1.35), and as their percentages of interventional radiologists increased (OR, 5.53 per percentage point) (P < .01 for all). Practices were less likely to employ NPPs as mean radiologist years since completing training increased (OR, 0.99 per year; P < .01).ConclusionsEmployment of NPPs by radiology practices has grown considerably in recent years, particularly in larger and urban practices and in those that employ more interventional and early-career radiologists. More work is necessary to better understand how this expanding use of NPPs affects the specialty.     

Lack of Timely Follow-Up of Abnormal Imaging Results and Radiologists’ Recommendations

PurposeAbnormal imaging results may not always lead to timely follow-up. We tested whether certain aspects of communication in radiology reports influence the response of the referring providers, and hence follow-up on abnormal findings.MethodsWe focused on 2 communication-related items that we hypothesized could affect follow-up: expressions of doubt in the radiology report, and recommendations for further imaging. After institutional review board approval, we conducted a retrospective review of 250 outpatient radiology reports from a multispecialty ambulatory clinic of a tertiary-care Veterans Affairs facility. The selected studies included 92 cases confirmed to lack timely follow-up (ie, further tests or consultations, treatment, and/or communication to the patient within 4 weeks), as determined in a previous study. An additional 158 cases with documented timely follow-up served as controls. Doubt in the narrative was measured by the presence of key phrases (eg, “unable to exclude,” “cannot exclude,” “cannot rule out,” “possibly,” and “unlikely”), in the absence of which we used reviewer interpretation. A physician blinded to follow-up outcomes collected the data.ResultsPatients whose reports contained recommendations for further imaging were more likely to have been lost to follow-up at 4 weeks compared with patients without such recommendations (P = .01). Language in the report suggestive of doubt did not affect the timeliness of follow-up (P = .59).ConclusionsAbnormal imaging results with recommendations for additional imaging may be more vulnerable to lack of timely follow-up. Additional safeguards, such as tracking systems, should be developed to prevent failure to follow up on such results.     

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.     

The Patient Experience in Radiology: Observations From Over 3,500 Patient Feedback Reports in a Single Institution

PurposeTo identify factors associated with the patient experience in radiology based on patient feedback reports from a single institution.MethodsIn a departmental patient experience committee initiative, all imaging outpatients are provided names and roles of all departmental employees with whom they interact, along with contact information for providing feedback after their appointment. All resulting feedback was recorded in a web-based database. A total of 3,675 patient comments over a 3-year period were assessed in terms of major themes. Roles of employees recognized within the patient comments were also assessed.ResultsPatient feedback comments most commonly related to professional staff behavior (74.5%) and wait times (11.9%), and less commonly related to a spectrum of other issues (comfort during the exam, quality of the facilities, access to information regarding the exam, patient privacy, medical records, the radiology report, billing). The most common attributes relating to staff behavior involved patients’ perceptions of staff caring, professionalism, pleasantness, helpfulness, and efficiency. Employees most commonly recognized by the comments were the technologist (50.2%) and receptionist (31.6%) and much less often the radiologist (2.2%). No radiologist was in the top 10% of employees in terms of the number of comments received.ConclusionPatients' comments regarding their experiences in undergoing radiologic imaging were largely influenced by staff behavior and communication (particularly relating to technologists and receptionists), as well as wait times, with radiologists having a far lesser immediate impact. Radiologists are encouraged to engage in activities that promote direct visibility to their patients and thereby combat risks of the perceived “invisible” radiologist.     

The impact of COVID-19 quarantine efforts on emergency radiology and trauma cases

ObjectiveAmidst COVID-19 pandemic, many states have issued stay at home advisories and non-essential business closures to limit public exposure. During this “quarantine” period, it is important to understand the volume and types of emergency/trauma radiology cases to better prepare for the continuing and future pandemics. This study demonstrates new trends in pathologies and an overall increase in positive exams.MethodsA retrospective review of emergency department's imaging during the initial two weeks of this state's quarantine period, 3/23/2020–4/5/2020 was compared to similar dates of the previous year (“pre-quarantine” period), 3/25/2019–4/7/2019. One thousand emergency radiology and 991 trauma cases were evaluated. Of the emergency radiology cases 500 studies from each period were assessed, and from the trauma cases, 783 cases from pre-quarantine and 315 from the quarantine period were examined. Chi-square analysis was performed to assess for statistical significance.ResultsOverall there were 43.0% fewer emergency radiology studies performed during the quarantine period (n = 4530) compared to pre-quarantine period (n = 2585). Additionally, the number of positive cases was significantly higher (P = 0.0001) during the quarantine period (43.0%) compared to the pre-quarantine period (30.2%). Several trends in types of trauma were observed, including a significant increase in domestic violence during the quarantine period (P = 0.0081).DiscussionDifferent volumes and types of emergency/trauma imaging cases were observed during the recent quarantine period. Findings may assist emergency radiology departments to plan for future pandemics or COVID-19 resurgences by offering evidence of the types and volume of emergency radiology cases one might expect.     

Non-interventional Radiology Fellowship Programs: What Is Out There?

ObjectiveTo determine the spectrum of non-interventional radiology fellowship programs in institutions that offer both a radiology residency program and one or more non-interventional radiology fellowship programs.MethodsInstitutions offering both radiology residency and non-interventional radiology fellowship programs were identified using publicly available websites. The non-interventional radiology fellowship programs were categorized into “traditional” (neuroradiology, breast imaging, abdominal imaging, musculoskeletal imaging, thoracic imaging, pediatric radiology, and nuclear medicine) and “nontraditional” fellowship programs. The nontraditional programs were stratified into four categories: a) Combinations of traditional fellowships; b) Focused nontraditional fellowships; c) Combinations of traditional and focused nontraditional fellowships (excluding traditional-traditional combinations); and d) Mandatory two-year fellowships. The distributions of the different types of traditional and nontraditional fellowship programs were evaluated.Results555 fellowship programs were identified in 113 institutions that offered both radiology residency and non-interventional radiology fellowship programs. 73.33% (407/555) of the programs were traditional fellowships, and 26.66% (148/555) were nontraditional fellowships. The 148 nontraditional fellowship programs were comprised of 41 different types of programs, 23 types of which were unique to and offered exclusively at specific institutions. 38.08% of the traditional fellowship programs were Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited, while only 16.21% (24/148) of the nontraditional fellowship programs were ACGME-accredited.ConclusionsThe nontraditional non-interventional radiology fellowship programs are formed by a heterogeneous group of programs, some of which are offered exclusively at a single institution. Awareness of the types of existing programs would help radiology residents in making a more informed decision regarding their fellowship training.     

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.     

Invasive Procedural Versus Diagnostic Imaging and Clinical Services Rendered by Radiology Trainees Over Two Decades

PurposeTo characterize evolving radiology trainee exposure to invasive procedures.MethodsUsing Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from 1997 to 2016, we identified Medicare services performed by radiology trainees in approved programs by extracting information on services billed by diagnostic and interventional radiologists reported with “GC” modifiers. Services were categorized as (1) invasive procedures, (2) noninvasive diagnostic imaging services, or (3) clinical evaluation and management (E&M) services. Relative category trainee work effort was estimated using service-level work relative value units.ResultsNationally from 1997 to 2016, invasive procedures declined from 34.2% to 14.3% of relative work effort for all Medicare-billed radiology trainee services. Radiology trainees’ noninvasive diagnostic imaging services increased from 65.1% to 85.4%. Clinical E&M services remained uniformly low (0.7%-0.3%). Diagnostic radiology (DR) and interventional radiology (IR) faculty supervised 81.0% and 19.0%, respectively, of all trainee invasive procedures in 1997, versus 68.3% and 31.7%, respectively, in 2016. Despite declining relative procedural work, trainees were exposed to a wide range of both basic and complex invasive procedures in both 1997 and 2016. Over this period, trainee noninvasive diagnostic imaging services shifted away from radiography to CT and MRI.ConclusionRadiology trainees’ relative invasive procedural work effort has declined over time as their work increasingly focuses on CT and MRI. As DR and IR-DR residency curricula begin to diverge, it is critical that both DR and IR residents receive robust training in basic image-guided procedures to ensure broad patient access to these services.     

Blind spots on CT imaging of the head: Insights from 5 years of report addenda at a single institution

BackgroundErrors of detection (“misses”) are the major source of error in radiology. There is sparse prior literature describing patterns of detection error on CT head imaging.PurposeThe objective of this study was to gain insight to areas on CT head imaging where radiologists are most likely to miss clinically relevant findings.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional study of consecutive reports of CT imaging of the head at a single institution spanning 5/1/2013–5/1/2018 (5 years). Detection errors described in addenda were categorized according to anatomic location, type of pathology, and potential impact on management. Blind spots were defined by the most common sites of missed findings.ResultsA total of 165,943 reports for CT head imaging were obtained. Addenda were found in 1658 (~1%) of reports, of which 359 (21.7%) described errors of detection. Within the extracranial soft tissues (n = 73) the most common “misses” were at incidentally imaged parotid glands and the frontal scalp. Within osseous structures (n = 149), blind spots included the nasal and occipital bones. Vascular lesions (n = 47) which passed detection were most common at the distal MCA, carotid terminus and sigmoid sinus/jugular bulb. No predisposition was seen for anatomic subsites within the CSF space (n = 60) and brain parenchyma (n = 65).ConclusionsConsistent patterns of blind spots are revealed. Radiologic teaching and search patterns to account for these sites of error may accelerate trainee competence and improve accuracy in the practice of radiology.     

The Radiology Resident as Teaching Consultant: An Innovative Peer-to-Peer Teaching Consultation Service to Strengthen Relationships With Referring Colleagues in the Era of Imaging 3.0

BackgroundThe American College of Radiology Imaging 3.0 paradigm emphasizes the need for radiologists to serve as imaging consultants to their referring colleagues. However, outside the reading room, teaching interactions between radiology and nonradiology residents are limited. Internal Medicine Morning Report (IMMR) is a resident-run educational program widely employed by internal medicine (IM) residencies. Although medical imaging is regularly discussed in IMMR, radiology residents are not typically involved in case preparation. We aimed to develop a peer-to-peer imaging teaching consultation service (TCS) incorporated into the well-established structure of IMMR. By creating illustrative, “dynamic” teaching slides for use at these conferences, we sought to provide salient radiology teaching material, demystify jargon, discuss appropriate imaging use, and review relevant anatomy. We hypothesized that TCS could improve the quality of IMMR as perceived by the IM presenter.MethodsTCS was piloted over a 7-month period. Each referred case was reviewed by a senior radiology resident who produced a set of “dynamic” teaching slides for each case. These included patient imaging overlayed with extensive annotations and animations highlighting teaching points, with particular attention to radiologic terminology. Slides were shared with the IM presenter, who could use them for preparation and include the animations in the talk if desired. TCS effectiveness was evaluated with a survey distributed to participating IM residents.ResultsIn the pilot period, 12 TCS requests were received and 10 were performed in collaboration with 6 IM residents. Survey results indicated that most IM residents did not consult radiologists prior to TCS (5/6, 83%). IM residents used the “dynamic” teaching slides to both prepare for and present at IMMR (5/6, 83%). TCS improved IM residents’ perceived ability to engage their audience (6/6, 100%), confidence in teaching radiology material (4/6, 67%), ability to understand radiology reports (4/6, 67%) and appreciation for what radiologists do (6/6, 100%).ConclusionsThe TCS pilot resulted in successful radiology-IM collaboration and improved knowledge and confidence in teaching imaging concepts. Continuous program evaluation will be performed and future work will assess the effect of TCS on radiologist confidence in real-world clinical consultations.     

Radiology Imaging Volume Changes During Discrete COVID-19 Pandemic Waves: Implications for the Delta Variant of Coronavirus and Future Pandemics

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate radiology imaging volumes at distinct time periods throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a function of regional COVID-19 hospitalizations.MethodsRadiology imaging volumes and statewide COVID-19 hospitalizations were collected, and four 28-day time periods throughout the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 were analyzed: pre–COVID-19 in January, the “first wave” of COVID-19 hospitalizations in April, the “recovery” time period in the summer of 2020 with a relative nadir of COVID-19 hospitalizations, and the “third wave” of COVID-19 hospitalizations in November. Imaging studies were categorized as inpatient, outpatient, or emergency department on the basis of patient location at the time of acquisition. A Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare daily imaging volumes during each discrete 28-day time period.ResultsImaging volumes overall during the first wave of COVID-19 infections were 55% (11,098/20,011; P < .001) of pre–COVID-19 imaging volumes. Overall imaging volumes returned during the recovery time period to 99% (19,915/20,011; P = .725), and third-wave imaging volumes compared with the pre–COVID-19 period were significantly lower in the emergency department at 88.8% (7,951/8,955; P < .001), significantly higher for outpatients at 115.7% (8,818/7,621; P = .008), not significantly different for inpatients at 106% (3,650/3,435; P = .053), and overall unchanged when aggregated together at 102% (20,419/20,011; P = .629).ConclusionsMedical imaging rebounded after the first wave of COVID-19 hospitalizations, with relative stability of utilization over the ensuing phases of the pandemic. As widespread COVID-19 vaccination continues to occur, future surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations will likely have a negligible impact on imaging utilization.     

Comparing Artificial Intelligence Approaches to Retrieve Clinical Reports Documenting Implantable Devices Posing MRI Safety Risks

ObjectiveAssess sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of two approaches to identify patients with implantable devices that pose safety risks for MRI—an expert-derived approach and an ontology-derived natural language processing (NLP). Determine the proportion of clinical data that identify these implantable devices.MethodsThis Institutional Review Board–approved retrospective study was performed at a 793-bed academic hospital. The expert-derived approach used an open-source software with a list of curated terms to query for implantable devices posing high safety risk (“MRI-Red”) in patients undergoing MRI. The ontology-derived approach used an NLP system with terms mapped to Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms. Queries were performed in three clinical data types—25,000 radiology reports, 174,769 emergency department (ED) notes, and 41,085 other clinical reports (eg, cardiology, operating room, physician notes, radiology reports, pathology reports, patient letters). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of both methods against manual review of a randomly sampled 465 reports were assessed and tested for significant differences between expert-derived and ontology-derived approaches using t test.ResultsAccuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of expert-versus ontology-derived approaches were similar (0.83 versus 0.91, P = .080; 0.88 versus 0.96, P = .178; 0.82 versus 0.92, P = .110). The proportion of radiology reports, ED notes, and other clinical reports retrieved containing implantable devices with high safety risks for MRI ranged from 1.47% to 1.88%.DiscussionArtificial intelligence approaches such as expert-driven NLP and ontology-driven NLP have similar accuracy in identifying patients with implantable devices that pose high safety risks for MRI.     

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.