1
|
Kwee RM, Amasha AAH, Kwee TC. Reading Times of Common Musculoskeletal MRI Examinations: A Survey Study. Tomography 2024; 10:1527-1533. [PMID: 39330758 PMCID: PMC11435788 DOI: 10.3390/tomography10090112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2024] [Revised: 09/09/2024] [Accepted: 09/18/2024] [Indexed: 09/28/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The workload of musculoskeletal radiologists has come under pressure. Our objective was to estimate the reading times of common musculoskeletal MRI examinations. METHODS A total of 144 radiologists were asked to estimate reading times (including interpretation and reporting) for MRI of the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle. Multivariate linear regression analyses were performed. RESULTS Reported median reading times with interquartile range (IQR) for the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle were 10 (IQR 6-14), 10 (IQR 6-14), 11 (IQR 7.5-14.5), 10 (IQR 6.6-13.4), 8 (IQR 4.6-11.4), and 10 (IQR 6.5-13.5) min, respectively. Radiologists aged 35-44 years reported shorter reading times for the shoulder (β coefficient [β] = B-3.412, p = 0.041), hip (β = -3.596, p = 0.023), and knee (β = -3.541, p = 0.013) than radiologists aged 45-54 years. Radiologists not working in an academic/teaching hospital reported shorter reading times for the hip (β = -3.611, p = 0.025) and knee (β = -3.038, p = 0.035). Female radiologists indicated longer reading times for all joints (β of 2.592 to 5.186, p ≤ 0.034). Radiologists without musculoskeletal fellowship training indicated longer reading times for the shoulder (β = 4.604, p = 0.005), elbow (β = 3.989, p = 0.038), wrist (β = 4.543, p = 0.014), and hip (β = 2.380, p = 0.119). Radiologists with <5 years of post-residency experience indicated longer reading times for all joints (β of 5.355 to 6.984, p ≤ 0.045), and radiologists with 5-10 years of post-residency experience reported longer reading time for the knee (β = 3.660, p = 0.045) than those with >10 years of post-residency experience. CONCLUSIONS There is substantial variation among radiologists in reported reading times for common musculoskeletal MRI examinations. Several radiologist-related determinants appear to be associated with reading speed, including age, gender, hospital type, training, and experience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert M Kwee
- Zuyderland Medical Center, 6419 PC Heerlen, The Netherlands
| | - Asaad A H Amasha
- University Medical Center Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Thomas C Kwee
- University Medical Center Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Dawson EL, Speelman C. Productivity measurement in psychology and neuropsychology: Existing standards and alternative suggestions. Clin Neuropsychol 2023; 37:1569-1583. [PMID: 36970878 DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2023.2192419] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2022] [Accepted: 03/13/2023] [Indexed: 03/29/2023]
Abstract
Objective: The Relative Value Unit (RVU) system was initially developed to account for costs associated with clinical services and has since been applied in some settings as a metric for monitoring productivity. That practice has come under fire in the medical literature due to perceived flaws in determination of "work RVU" for different billing codes and negative impacts on healthcare rendered. This issue also affects psychologists, who bill codes associated with highly variable hourly wRVUs. This paper highlights this discrepancy and suggests alternative options for measuring productivity to better equate psychologists' time spent completing various billable clinical activities. Method: A review was performed to identify potential limitations to measuring providers' productivity based on wRVU alone. Available publications focus almost exclusively on physician productivity models. Little information was available relating to wRVU for psychology services, including neuropsychological evaluations, specifically. Conclusions: Measurement of clinician productivity using only wRVU disregards patient outcomes and under-values psychological assessment. Neuropsychologists are particularly affected. Based on the existing literature, we propose alternative approaches that capture productivity equitably among subspecialists and support provision of non-billable services that are also of high value (e.g. education and research).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erica L Dawson
- Department of Neurology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Claire Speelman
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cowan IA, Floyd RA. Measurement of radiologist reporting times: Assessment of precision, comparison of three different measurement techniques and review of potential applications. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2023; 67:734-741. [PMID: 37608491 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13570] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2022] [Accepted: 07/31/2023] [Indexed: 08/24/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Radiologist reporting times are a key component of radiology department workload assessment, but reliable measurement remains challenging. Currently, there are three contenders for this task: median reporting times (MRTs), extracted directly from a department's radiology information system (RIS); study-ascribed times (SATs), using published tables of individual descriptors derived from a combination of measurement and consensus; and radiology reporting figures (RRFs), using published tables of measured times based on modality and numbers of anatomical areas. METHODS We review these techniques, their possible uses and some potential pitfalls. We discuss the level of precision that can realistically be attained in measuring reporting times, and list the strengths and weaknesses of each technique, comparing them in relation to each of eight potential applications. RESULTS We believe that SATs are challenging for practical use due to their static nature, absent common descriptors and large number. RRFs are more user-friendly but are also static and require ongoing updates; currently, they do not include ultrasound. MRTs cannot currently be extracted from every RIS, but where available they are easy to use and their dynamic nature provides the most objective data. They underestimate the unmeasurable components of a radiologist's work and therefore the total time spent in a reporting session. CONCLUSION MRTs are superior to the other methods in flexibility, precision and ease of use. All institutions should have access to this data and we call on vendors of Radiology Information Systems which are currently not capable of providing it to make the necessary modifications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ian A Cowan
- Everlight Radiology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Richard A Floyd
- Radiology Department, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Alexander R, Waite S, Bruno MA, Krupinski EA, Berlin L, Macknik S, Martinez-Conde S. Mandating Limits on Workload, Duty, and Speed in Radiology. Radiology 2022; 304:274-282. [PMID: 35699581 PMCID: PMC9340237 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.212631] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Research has not yet quantified the effects of workload or duty hours on the accuracy of radiologists. With the exception of a brief reduction in imaging studies during the 2020 peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the workload of radiologists in the United States has seen relentless growth in recent years. One concern is that this increased demand could lead to reduced accuracy. Behavioral studies in species ranging from insects to humans have shown that decision speed is inversely correlated to decision accuracy. A potential solution is to institute workload and duty limits to optimize radiologist performance and patient safety. The concern, however, is that any prescribed mandated limits would be arbitrary and thus no more advantageous than allowing radiologists to self-regulate. Specific studies have been proposed to determine whether limits reduce error, and if so, to provide a principled basis for such limits. This could determine the precise susceptibility of individual radiologists to medical error as a function of speed during image viewing, the maximum number of studies that could be read during a work shift, and the appropriate shift duration as a function of time of day. Before principled recommendations for restrictions are made, however, it is important to understand how radiologists function both optimally and at the margins of adequate performance. This study examines the relationship between interpretation speed and error rates in radiology, the potential influence of artificial intelligence on reading speed and error rates, and the possible outcomes of imposed limits on both caseload and duty hours. This review concludes that the scientific evidence needed to make meaningful rules is lacking and notes that regulating workloads without scientific principles can be more harmful than not regulating at all.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert Alexander
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology (R.A., S.M., S.M.C.), Radiology (S.W.), Neurology (S.M., S.M.C.), and Physiology & Pharmacology (S.M., S.M.C.), SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, 450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11203; Department of Radiology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pa (M.A.B.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga (E.A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Rush University Medical College and University of Illinois, Chicago, Ill (L.B.)
| | - Stephen Waite
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology (R.A., S.M., S.M.C.), Radiology (S.W.), Neurology (S.M., S.M.C.), and Physiology & Pharmacology (S.M., S.M.C.), SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, 450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11203; Department of Radiology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pa (M.A.B.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga (E.A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Rush University Medical College and University of Illinois, Chicago, Ill (L.B.)
| | - Michael A Bruno
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology (R.A., S.M., S.M.C.), Radiology (S.W.), Neurology (S.M., S.M.C.), and Physiology & Pharmacology (S.M., S.M.C.), SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, 450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11203; Department of Radiology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pa (M.A.B.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga (E.A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Rush University Medical College and University of Illinois, Chicago, Ill (L.B.)
| | - Elizabeth A Krupinski
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology (R.A., S.M., S.M.C.), Radiology (S.W.), Neurology (S.M., S.M.C.), and Physiology & Pharmacology (S.M., S.M.C.), SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, 450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11203; Department of Radiology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pa (M.A.B.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga (E.A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Rush University Medical College and University of Illinois, Chicago, Ill (L.B.)
| | - Leonard Berlin
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology (R.A., S.M., S.M.C.), Radiology (S.W.), Neurology (S.M., S.M.C.), and Physiology & Pharmacology (S.M., S.M.C.), SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, 450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11203; Department of Radiology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pa (M.A.B.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga (E.A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Rush University Medical College and University of Illinois, Chicago, Ill (L.B.)
| | - Stephen Macknik
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology (R.A., S.M., S.M.C.), Radiology (S.W.), Neurology (S.M., S.M.C.), and Physiology & Pharmacology (S.M., S.M.C.), SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, 450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11203; Department of Radiology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pa (M.A.B.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga (E.A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Rush University Medical College and University of Illinois, Chicago, Ill (L.B.)
| | - Susana Martinez-Conde
- From the Departments of Ophthalmology (R.A., S.M., S.M.C.), Radiology (S.W.), Neurology (S.M., S.M.C.), and Physiology & Pharmacology (S.M., S.M.C.), SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, 450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11203; Department of Radiology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pa (M.A.B.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga (E.A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Rush University Medical College and University of Illinois, Chicago, Ill (L.B.)
| |
Collapse
|