Determinants of Radiologists’ Productivity in Private Group Practices in California

Current State of Private Practice and Academic Interventional Radiology: Differences in Practice Structure, Case Mix, and Productivity

PURPOSE

To investigate whether private practice interventional radiology (IR) groups self-report higher overall productivity given differing case mix and more diagnostic radiology interpretation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 60-question survey was distributed to 3,159 self-identified US IR physicians via the Society of Interventional Radiologists member search engine, with 357 responses (11.3% response rate). Of these responses, there were 258 unique practices from 34 US states.

RESULTS

Out of 84 IR group responses, private practice IR (PPIR) physicians reported a minimal trend for higher annual work relative value units (wRVUs) per clinical full-time equivalent compared with academic IR physicians (8,000 versus 7,140, P = .202), but this did not reach statistical significance. PPIR groups reported fewer median weekly hours (50 versus 52), more frequent call (every 6 versus every 5 days), and significantly higher median tenured compensation ($573,000 versus $451,000, P = .000). Out of 179 responses, academic practices reported significantly higher case percentages of interventional oncology and complex hepatobiliary intervention (P <.001), and private practices reported significantly higher percentages of musculoskeletal intervention (P < .001) with a nonsignificant trend for stroke or neurologic intervention (P = .010). Private practices reported more wRVUs from the interpretation of diagnostic imaging, at 26% of total wRVU production compared with 7% of total wRVU production for academic practices (P < .001; n = 131).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported data from private and academic IR groups suggest minimally higher wRVUs per clinical full-time equivalent among PPIRs with lower weekly work hours, more frequent call, differing case mix, and significantly higher tenured compensation among PPIR groups.

Comparing the productivity of teaching and non-teaching workflow models in an academic abdominal imaging division

PURPOSE

To evaluate the productivity difference between teaching and non-teaching workflow models in an abdominal imaging division in an academic radiology department.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

RVU data were compiled for six faculty members from the abdominal imaging division over a six-month period. Modalities included ultrasound and CT of the abdomen and pelvis. The relative RVU productivity for faculty members by workflow was compared individually and the composite data for the workflow models were compared. The relative RVU productivity for each faculty member was compared individually and in aggregate to study the effect of the workflow models on RVUs using factorial ANOVA. Turnaround times (TAT) were compared for each attending under both models. TAT data were analyzed using paired t-tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

Daily RVU data from 387 instances were analyzed. Daily RVUs for faculty members ranged from 23.5 ± 2.3 (mean ± standard error) to 46.2 ± 2.4 with non-teaching and from 29.8 ± 2.2 to 54.4 ± 2.7 with teaching workflow, respectively. There was a significant main effect of the workflow model on RVU productivity (p < 0.05). A significant increase of 27.8% in RVUs was noted with teaching workflow (42.8 ± 0.9) relative to non-teaching workflow (33.5 ± 1.7; p < 0.05). Teaching workflow resulted in significantly higher view-final and complete-final TATs (593 ± 112 min, mean ± SE and 841 ± 96 min, mean ± SE, respectively) compared to the non-teaching workflow (385 ± 124 min).

CONCLUSION

Teaching workflow improves abdominal imaging productivity with an increase in report turnaround times.

Estimating the productivity of radiologists in Brazil: the search for a benchmark

Objective

To determine the average productivity of radiologists, as measured by number of reports issued per 6-h shift, evaluating variables that could affect the results.

Materials and Methods

This was a study utilizing an online questionnaire sent to radiologists affiliated with the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging. The questions were related to the demographic profile and professional practice characteristics (form of remuneration, primary imaging method employed, and subspecialty) of the radiologists, as well as their individual productivity (average personal productivity) and the productivity considered reasonable in a 6-h shift. The association between productivity and the practice characteristics of the radiologists was determined by using Poisson regression to calculate the prevalence ratio.

Results

A total of 510 radiologists completed the questionnaire. The great majority of the respondents (84%) reported that their remuneration is directly related to their productivity. The productivity varied according to the subspecialty, work environment, and remuneration model.

Conclusion

We demonstrated that the productivity of radiologists is associated with the characteristics of their employment. We hope that this study will encourage other studies aimed at evaluating the productive capacity of the radiologists in Brazil, addressing the various functions they perform in their daily routine, including activities other than issuing reports.

What is the relation between number of sessions worked and productivity of radiologists-a pilot study?

Increasing workloads and the current austerity measures are putting UK radiology departments under considerable stress. We need to look at the most efficient ways to manage radiology departments in order to cope with increasing demand. Consequently, a system is needed that can compare productivity between radiologists with different jobs. We measured workload in a UK radiology department and compared the productivities of consultants working different numbers of sessions, which are called programmed activities (PAs), to identify the optimal job plan structure for reporting productivity. Reporting data was gathered from electronic records for 14 consultants working different numbers of PA during the period April 2010-March 2011. These were converted into relative value unit (RVU) scores using a modified RCSI RVU system. Crude and net workloads were calculated for each consultant by dividing their total RVU score by the number of PAs they were contracted for and how many they spent reporting. The consultants reported 118,001 imaging studies. There was statistically significant variation in productivity between consultants working different numbers of PAs on χ (2) analysis (p < 0.05). Consultants working 12 PAs were more productive than consultants working 11 PAs, with net workloads of 7636 RVU/PA/year versus net 6146 RVU/PA/year, p < 0.05. Although UK consultants working 12 PAs per week are more productive than their colleagues, the reasons why are unclear. We have identified a method that can be developed further to identify efficient working practices in UK radiology departments. However, a UK-specific RVU system would make this productivity analysis more accurate.

Of mice and men: escaping the relative value unit trap

Although radiologists have kept pace with the dramatic growth of medical imaging during the past two decades through the use of PACS, digital dictation, and 3-dimensional reconstruction, radiology is approaching the point of diminishing returns. As reimbursements further decline, attempts to increase radiologists' productivity risk commoditization of the specialty. The continued evolution of US health care policy, however, presents an opportunity for radiologists, using their core competencies, to shape the future direction of medicine.

Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology

OBJECTIVE

In this article, we describe some of the cognitive and system-based sources of detection and interpretation errors in diagnostic radiology and discuss potential approaches to help reduce misdiagnoses.

CONCLUSION

Every radiologist worries about missing a diagnosis or giving a false-positive reading. The retrospective error rate among radiologic examinations is approximately 30%, with real-time errors in daily radiology practice averaging 3-5%. Nearly 75% of all medical malpractice claims against radiologists are related to diagnostic errors. As medical reimbursement trends downward, radiologists attempt to compensate by undertaking additional responsibilities to increase productivity. The increased workload, rising quality expectations, cognitive biases, and poor system factors all contribute to diagnostic errors in radiology. Diagnostic errors are underrecognized and underappreciated in radiology practice. This is due to the inability to obtain reliable national estimates of the impact, the difficulty in evaluating effectiveness of potential interventions, and the poor response to systemwide solutions. Most of our clinical work is executed through type 1 processes to minimize cost, anxiety, and delay; however, type 1 processes are also vulnerable to errors. Instead of trying to completely eliminate cognitive shortcuts that serve us well most of the time, becoming aware of common biases and using metacognitive strategies to mitigate the effects have the potential to create sustainable improvement in diagnostic errors.