Top

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Original Article

Subspecialized radiological reporting reduces radiology report turnaround time

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this study was to compare the radiology report turnaround time (RTAT) between decentralized/modality-based and centralized/subspecialized radiological reporting at a multi-center radiology enterprise.

Methods

RTAT values for MRI, CT, and conventional radiography were compared between decentralized/modality-based (04 September 2017–22 December 2017) and centralized/subspecialized radiology (03 September 2018–21 December 2018) reporting grouped into three subspecializations (body radiology, musculoskeletal radiology, and neuroradiology) at eleven sites of a multi-center radiology enterprise. For the objective of this investigation, hospitals were defined as major and minor hospitals. The Mann-Whitney U test served for statistical analyses.

Results

Change of reporting system from decentralized/modality-based to centralized/subspecialized radiology resulted overall in a significant decrease of the RTAT: from 82 to 77 min for the first signature (p < 0.001), and 119 to 107 min and 295 to 238 min for the second signature (p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses demonstrate a significant decrease of the RTAT for MRI reports (e.g., second signature RTAT, 1051 to 401 min; p < 0.001) and conventional radiographs (e. g., second signature RTAT, 278 to 171 min; p < 0.001). The RTAT at major hospitals decreased from 288 to 245 min (second signature; p < 0.001) while the corresponding RTAT of minor hospitals decreased more remarkably, from 300 to 198 min (p < 0.001). However, the results were heterogenous; in some analyses, the RTAT even increased. The effect size analyses represent small effects.

Conclusions

Change of reporting system from decentralized/modality-based to centralized/subspecialized radiology was associated with a significant decreased RTAT. Specifically, the RTAT for MRI reports and conventional radiographs was significantly reduced. A pronounced RTAT decrease was observed at minor hospitals.

Rosenkrantz AB, Wang W, Hughes DR, Duszak R Jr (2018) Generalist versus subspecialist characteristics of the U.S. radiologist workforce. Radiology 286:929–937CrossRefPubMed

Rehani B, Zhang YC, Rehani MM et al (2017) Radiology education in Europe: analysis of results from 22 European countries. World J Radiol. 9:55–62CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Meyl TP, de Bucourt M, Berghöfer A et al (2019) Subspecialization in radiology: effects on the diagnostic spectrum of radiologists and report turnaround time in a Swiss university hospital. Radiol Med. 124:860–869CrossRefPubMed

Fleishon HB, Vijayasarathi A, Pyatt R, Schoppe K, Rosenthal SA, Silva E 3rd. (2019) White paper: corporatization in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol. 16:1364–1374CrossRefPubMed

European Society of Radiology (2010) The future role of radiology in healthcare. Insights Imaging. 1:2–11CrossRef

Swiss Federal Statistical Office - STAT-TAB, online database – Ständige und nichtständige Wohnbevölkerung nach institutionellen Gliederungen, Geburtsort und Staatsangehörigkeit (in German)

Glaser C, Trumm C, Nissen-Meyer S, Francke M, Küttner B, Reiser M (2005) Speech recognition: impact on workflow and report availability. Radiologe. 45:735–742CrossRefPubMed

Boland GW, Guimaraes AS, Mueller PR (2008) Radiology report turnaround: expectations and solutions. Eur Radiol. 18:1326–1328CrossRefPubMed

Altman DG, Bland JM (1995) Statistics notes: the normal distribution. BMJ. 310:298CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Victor A, Elsässer A, Hommel G, Blettner M (2010) Judging a plethora of p-values: how to contend with the problem of multiple testing--part 10 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 107:50–56PubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull. 112:155–159CrossRefPubMed

12.

Oechtering TH, Panagiotopoulos N, Völker M et al (2020) Work and training conditions of German residents in radiology - results from a nationwide survey conducted by the young radiology forum in the German Roentgen Society. Rofo. 192:458–470

13.

Forsberg D, Rosipko B, Sunshine JL (2017) Radiologists’ variation of time to read across different procedure types. J Digit Imaging. 30:86–94CrossRefPubMed

14.

Stern C, Boehm T, Seifert B, Kawel-Boehm N (2018) Subspecialized radiological reporting expedites turnaround time of radiology reports and increases productivity. Rofo. 190:623–629

15.

Dionisio JD, Taira RK, Sinha U et al (2000) Teleradiology as a foundation for an enterprise-wide health care delivery system. Radiographics. 20:1137–1150CrossRefPubMed

16.

Brand J, Bernegger A, Pressinger D, Schindler M, Neubauer T (2019) Multihospital use of imaging techniques in decentralized trauma care. Unfallchirurg. 122:328–332

17.

Bradley WG Jr (2012) Teleradiology. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 22:511–517CrossRefPubMed

18.

Rao SH, Virarkar M, Yang WT et al (2020) Streamlining the quantitative metrics workflow at a comprehensive cancer center. Acad Radiol S1076-6332(20)30364-30360. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2020.06.014

19.

Baccei SJ, Henderson SR, Lo HS, Reynolds K (2020) Using quality improvement methodology to reduce costs while improving efficiency and provider satisfaction in a busy, academic musculoskeletal radiology division. J Med Syst. 44:104CrossRefPubMed

20.

Seithe T, de Bucourt M, Busse R et al (2015) Teleradiological report turnaround times: an internal efficiency and quality control analysis. Radiologe 55(5):409-416

21.

Rathnayake S, Nautsch F, Goodman TR, Forman HP, Gunabushanam G (2017) Effect of radiology study flow on report turnaround time. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 209:1308–1311CrossRefPubMed

22.

Prevedello LM, Ledbetter S, Farkas C, Khorasani R (2014) Implementation of speech recognition in a community-based radiology practice: effect on report turnaround times. J Am Coll Radiol. 11:402–406CrossRefPubMed

23.

Andriole KP, Prevedello LM, Dufault A et al (2010) Augmenting the impact of technology adoption with financial incentive to improve radiology report signature times. J Am Coll Radiol. 7:198–204CrossRefPubMed

24.

Kwak SK, Kim JH (2017) Statistical data preparation: management of missing values and outliers. Korean J Anesthesiol. 70:407–411CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Brydges CR (2019) Effect size guidelines, sample size calculations, and statistical power in gerontology. Innov Aging. 4;3(4):igz036

Title: Subspecialized radiological reporting reduces radiology report turnaround time
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Keywords: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
Musculoskeletal Radiology
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00917-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Subspecialized radiological reporting reduces radiology report turnaround time

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Interventional radiology and artificial intelligence in radiology: Is it time to enhance the vision of our medical students?

Mapping the ischemic penumbra and predicting stroke progression in acute ischemic stroke: the overlooked role of susceptibility weighted imaging

Sports-related lower limb muscle injuries: pattern recognition approach and MRI review

Persistent left superior vena cava: clinical importance and differential diagnoses

Radiology in the era of value-based healthcare: a multi-society expert statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA

Study of breast implants mammography examinations for identification of suitable image quality criteria