Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 2/2017

01-04-2017

Improved Screening Mammogram Workflow by Maximizing PACS Streamlining Capabilities in an Academic Breast Center

Authors: Ramya Pham, Daniel Forsberg, Donna Plecha

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to perform an operational improvement project targeted at the breast imaging reading workflow of mammography examinations at an academic medical center with its associated breast centers and satellite sites. Through careful analysis of the current workflow, two major issues were identified: stockpiling of paperwork and multiple worklists. Both issues were considered to cause significant delays to the start of interpreting screening mammograms. Four workflow changes were suggested (scanning of paperwork, worklist consolidation, use of chat functionality, and tracking of case distribution among trainees) and implemented in July 2015. Timestamp data was collected 2 months before (May–Jun) and after (Aug–Sep) the implemented changes. Generalized linear models were used to analyze the data. The results showed significant improvements for the interpretation of screening mammograms. The average time elapsed for time to open a case reduced from 70 to 28 min (60 % decrease, p < 0.001), report turn-around time with preliminary signature decreased from 151 to 107 min (29 % decrease, p < 0.001), and report turn-around time final signature from 153 to 139 min (9 % decrease, p = 0.002). These improvements were achieved while keeping the efficiency of the workflow for diagnostic mammograms at large unaltered even with increased volume of mammography examinations (31 % increase of 4344 examinations for May–Jun to 5678 examinations for Aug–Sep). In conclusion, targeted efforts to improve the breast imaging reading workflow for screening mammograms in a teaching environment provided significant performance improvements without affecting the workflow of diagnostic mammograms.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Srinivasan M, Liederman E, Baluyot N, Jacoby R: Saving time, improving satisfaction: the impact of a digital radiology system on physician workflow and system efficiency. J Healthc Inf Manag 20(2):123–132, 2006PubMed Srinivasan M, Liederman E, Baluyot N, Jacoby R: Saving time, improving satisfaction: the impact of a digital radiology system on physician workflow and system efficiency. J Healthc Inf Manag 20(2):123–132, 2006PubMed
3.
go back to reference Nitrosi A, Borasi G, Nicoli F, et al: A filmless radiology department in a full digital regional hospital: quantitative evaluation of the increased quality and efficiency. J Digit Imaging 20(2):140–148, 2007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nitrosi A, Borasi G, Nicoli F, et al: A filmless radiology department in a full digital regional hospital: quantitative evaluation of the increased quality and efficiency. J Digit Imaging 20(2):140–148, 2007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Lahiri A, Seidmann A: Analyzing the differential impact of radiology information systems across radiology modalities. J Am Coll Radiol 6(10):705–714, 2009CrossRefPubMed Lahiri A, Seidmann A: Analyzing the differential impact of radiology information systems across radiology modalities. J Am Coll Radiol 6(10):705–714, 2009CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Joe BN, Sickles EA: The evolution of breast imaging: past to present. Radiology 273(2S):S23–S44, 2014CrossRefPubMed Joe BN, Sickles EA: The evolution of breast imaging: past to present. Radiology 273(2S):S23–S44, 2014CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Nishikawa RM, Acharyya S, Gatsonis C, et al: Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography. Radiology 251(1):41–49, 2009CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nishikawa RM, Acharyya S, Gatsonis C, et al: Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography. Radiology 251(1):41–49, 2009CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al: Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353(17):1773–1783, 2005CrossRefPubMed Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al: Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353(17):1773–1783, 2005CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Stout NK, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, et al: Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 106(6):dju092, 2014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Stout NK, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, et al: Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 106(6):dju092, 2014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference van Ravesteyn NT, van Lier L, Schechter CB, et al: Transition from film to digital mammography: impact for breast cancer screening through the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program. Am J Prev Med 48(5):535–542, 2015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral van Ravesteyn NT, van Lier L, Schechter CB, et al: Transition from film to digital mammography: impact for breast cancer screening through the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program. Am J Prev Med 48(5):535–542, 2015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Glynn CG, Farria DM, Monsees BS, et al: Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes. Radiology 260(3):664–670, 2011CrossRefPubMed Glynn CG, Farria DM, Monsees BS, et al: Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes. Radiology 260(3):664–670, 2011CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Bick U, Diekmann F: Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know? Eur Radiol 17(8):1931–1942, 2007CrossRefPubMed Bick U, Diekmann F: Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know? Eur Radiol 17(8):1931–1942, 2007CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Nederend J, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, et al: Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study. Ann Oncol 23(12):3098–3103, 2012CrossRefPubMed Nederend J, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, et al: Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study. Ann Oncol 23(12):3098–3103, 2012CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, et al: Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. Am J Roentgenol 187(1):38–41, 2006CrossRef Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, et al: Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. Am J Roentgenol 187(1):38–41, 2006CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Haygood TM, Wang J, Atkinson EN, et al: Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms. Am J Roentgenol 192(1):216–220, 2009CrossRef Haygood TM, Wang J, Atkinson EN, et al: Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms. Am J Roentgenol 192(1):216–220, 2009CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kuzmiak CM, Cole E, Zeng D, et al: Comparison of image acquisition and radiologist interpretation times in a diagnostic mammography center. Acad Radiol 17(9):1168–1174, 2010CrossRefPubMed Kuzmiak CM, Cole E, Zeng D, et al: Comparison of image acquisition and radiologist interpretation times in a diagnostic mammography center. Acad Radiol 17(9):1168–1174, 2010CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Improved Screening Mammogram Workflow by Maximizing PACS Streamlining Capabilities in an Academic Breast Center
Authors
Ramya Pham
Daniel Forsberg
Donna Plecha
Publication date
01-04-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-016-9909-6

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Journal of Digital Imaging 2/2017 Go to the issue