ACR White Paper: The Value Added That Radiologists Provide to the Health Care Enterprise

Reporting Sacroiliac Joint Imaging Performed for Known or Suspected Axial Spondyloarthritis: Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society Recommendations

Whereas previous projects attempted to standardize imaging in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), few studies have been published about the need for specific details regarding the image acquisition and lesions that may be less familiar to general radiologists. This work reports consensus recommendations developed by the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) that aim to standardize the imaging reports in patients suspected of having or with known axSpA. A task force consisting of radiologists and rheumatologists from ASAS and one patient representative formulated two surveys that were completed by ASAS members. The results of these surveys led to the development of 10 recommendations that were endorsed by 73% (43 of 59) of ASAS members. The recommendations are targeted to the radiologist and include best practices for the inclusion of clinical information, technical details, image quality, and imaging findings in radiology reports. These recommendations also emphasize that imaging findings that indicate differential diagnoses and referral suggestions should be included in the concluding section of the radiology report. With these recommendations, ASAS aims to improve the diagnostic process and care for patients suspected of having or with known axSpA.

Teleradiology: good practice guide

Teleradiology is the electronic transmission of radiological images from one location to another with the main purpose of interpreting or consulting a diagnosis and must be subject to codes of conduct agreed upon by professional societies. The content of fourteen teleradiology best practice guidelines is analyzed. Their guiding principles are: the best interest and benefit of the patient, quality and safety standards homologous to the local radiology service, and use as a complement and support of the same. As legal obligations: guaranteeing rights by applying the principle of the patient's country of origin, establishing requirements in international teleradiology and civil liability insurance. Regarding the radiological process: integration with the local service process, guaranteeing the quality of images and reports, access to previous studies and reports and complying with the principles of radioprotection. Regarding professional requirements: compliance with the required registrations, licenses and qualifications, training and qualification of the radiologist and technician, prevention of fraudulent practices, respect for labor standards and remuneration of the radiologist. Subcontracting must be justified, managing the risk of commoditization. Compliance with the system's technical standards.

Influences of the Social Media Continuum Model in Radiology: Theory and Reality

Social media utilization has been growing exponentially worldwide and has created a thriving venue for radiologists and the profession of radiology to engage in on both the academic and social levels. The aim of this article is to conduct updated literature review and address a gap in the literature by introducing a simple classification for social media utilization and a new theoretical model to outline the role and potential value of social media in the realm of radiology. We propose classifying social media through usage-driven and access-driven indices. Furthermore, we discuss the interdependency of radiologists, other physicians and non-physician stakeholders, scientific journals, conferences/meetings and the general public in an integrated social media continuum model. With the ongoing sub-specialization of radiology, social media helps mitigate the physical barriers of making connections with peers and audiences which would have otherwise been unfeasible. The constant evolution and diversification of social media platforms necessitates a novel approach to better understand its role through a radiological lens. With the looming fear of 'ancillary service' labelling, social media could be the golden plate to halt the path towards commoditization of radiology.

Concordance Assessment of Pathology Results with Imaging Findings after Image-Guided Biopsy

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of radiology review for discordance between pathology results from computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsies versus imaging findings performed before a biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective review, which is compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and approved by the institutional review board, 926 consecutive CT-guided biopsies performed between January 2015 and December 2017 were included. In total, 453 patients were presented in radiology review meetings (prospective group), and the results were classified as concordant or discordant. Results from the remaining 473 patients not presented at the radiology review meetings were retrospectively classified. Times to reintervention and to definitive diagnosis were obtained for discordant cases; of these, 49 (11%) of the 453 patients were in the prospective group and 55 (12%) of the 473 patients in the retrospective group.

RESULTS

Pathology results from CT-guided biopsies were discordant with imaging in 11% (104/926) of the cases, with 57% (59/104) of these cases proving to be malignant. In discordant cases, reintervention with biopsy and surgery yielded a shorter time to definitive diagnosis (28 and 14 days, respectively) than an imaging follow-up (78 days) (P < .001). The median time to diagnosis was 41 days in the prospective group and 56 days in the retrospective group (P = .46). When radiologists evaluated the concordance between pathology and imaging findings and recommended a repeat biopsy for the discordant cases, more biopsies were performed (50% [11/22] vs 13% [4/31]; P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Eleven percent of CT-guided biopsies yielded pathology results that were discordant with imaging findings, with 57% of these proving to be malignant on further workup.

Direct communication between radiologists and patients improves the quality of imaging reports

OBJECTIVES

We investigate in what percentage of cases and to what extent radiological reports change when radiologists directly communicate with patients after imaging examinations.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-two consecutive outpatients undergoing MRI examinations at a single center were prospectively included. Radiological reports of the patients were drafted by two radiologists in consensus using only the clinical information that was made available by the referring physicians. Thereafter, one radiologist talked directly with the patient and recorded the duration of the conversation. Afterwards, the additional information from the patient was used to reevaluate the imaging studies in consensus. The radiologists determined whether the radiological report changed based on additional information and, if yes, to what extent. The degree of change was graded on a 4-point Likert scale (1, non-relevant findings, to 4, highly relevant findings).

RESULTS

Following direct communication (duration 170.9 ± 53.9 s), the radiological reports of 52 patients (42.6%) were changed. Of the 52 patients, the degree of change was classified as grade 1 for 8 patients (15.4 %), grade 2 for 27 patients (51.9%), grade 3 for 13 patients (25%), and grade 4 for 4 patients (7.7%). The reasons leading to changes were missing clinical information in 50 cases (96.2%) and the lack of additional external imaging in 2 cases (3.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiologists should be aware that a lack of accurate information from the clinician can lead to incorrect radiological reports or diagnosis. Radiologists should communicate directly with patients, especially when the provided information is unclear, as it may significantly alter the radiological report.

KEY POINTS

• Direct communication between radiologists and patients for an average of 170's resulted in a change in the radiological reports of 52 patients (42.6%). • Of the 42.6% of cases where the reports were changed, the alterations were highly relevant (grades 3 and 4) in 32.7%, indicating major changes with significant impact towards patient management.

Adding value to imaging services: a survey of patient and referring physician preferences for direct radiologic reporting of results

PURPOSE

To identify preferences of patients and referring physicians for direct patient communication and notification of radiologic study results.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was conducted of patients undergoing outpatient radiologic imaging studies and their referring physicians. The voluntary surveys elicited responses regarding preferences on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree), as well as indicated by responding yes or no to specific questions.

RESULTS

368 patients completed the survey. 81.5% of patient responders preferred all results communicated from the radiologist within the same day. 65.9% of patients preferred same day results if normal vs 65.8% if abnormal. 34.5% preferred to wait and review normal results with the referring physician. 41.5% preferred to wait and review abnormal results with the referring physician. It was found that patients were more likely to strongly agree with waiting to review results with the referring physician if the results were abnormal, as opposed to normal (18.5% vs 11.9%, respectively; P < 0.014). 64% of physicians did not want results reviewed with their patients; 87.6% did not want a report sent to the patient by the radiologist, even after report was sent to their office. 66.4% of patients surveyed indicated that waiting for imaging results gives them anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

58-82% of patients preferred same day radiologist communication of their results while 55-87.6% of physicians did not prefer same day radiologist communication of results directly with their patients. 66.4% of patients surveyed indicated that waiting for imaging results gives them anxiety.

Implementation of LI-RADS into a radiological practice

Since its introduction in 2011, Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) has become an increasingly utilized method for radiologists to categorize lesions for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients at risk (American College of Radiology, www.acr.org/quality-safety/resources/lirads 2016). This overview article presents insight into methods of incorporating LI-RADS into an existing clinical practice, highlighting concrete ways to establish this system as a mainstay in any radiologist's evidence-based armamentarium. We will focus on the importance of standardization to improve the value of our reporting. We will also discuss specific opportunities to favor adoption of LI-RADS including building a community of users composed of radiologists and referring physicians, forming a strategic vision, enlisting a team leader, overcoming barriers to adoption, communicating successes, integrating the system into the departmental culture, and learning from mistakes. The 2017 version of LI-RADS is the most recent update and is based on the most current medical imaging evidence. The details of these updates are described in other articles in this journal's edition. Efforts should be made to increase adherence and to enhance standardized use of LI-RADS internationally. Ultimately, the objective of LI-RADS is to prioritize patient care and optimize medical outcomes.

Metrix Matrix: A Cloud-Based System for Tracking Non-Relative Value Unit Value-Added Work Metrics

PURPOSE

In the era of value-based medicine, it will become increasingly important for radiologists to provide metrics that demonstrate their value beyond clinical productivity. In this article the authors describe their institution's development of an easy-to-use system for tracking value-added but non-relative value unit (RVU)-based activities.

METHODS

Metrix Matrix is an efficient cloud-based system for tracking value-added work. A password-protected home page contains links to web-based forms created using Google Forms, with collected data populating Google Sheets spreadsheets. Value-added work metrics selected for tracking included interdisciplinary conferences, hospital committee meetings, consulting on nonbilled outside studies, and practice-based quality improvement. Over a period of 4 months, value-added work data were collected for all clinical attending faculty members in a university-based radiology department (n = 39). Time required for data entry was analyzed for 2 faculty members over the same time period.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine faculty members (equivalent to 36.4 full-time equivalents) reported a total of 1,223.5 hours of value-added work time (VAWT). A formula was used to calculate "value-added RVUs" (vRVUs) from VAWT. VAWT amounted to 5,793.6 vRVUs or 6.0% of total work performed (vRVUs plus work RVUs [wRVUs]). Were vRVUs considered equivalent to wRVUs for staffing purposes, this would require an additional 2.3 full-time equivalents, on the basis of average wRVU calculations. Mean data entry time was 56.1 seconds per day per faculty member.

CONCLUSIONS

As health care reimbursement evolves with an emphasis on value-based medicine, it is imperative that radiologists demonstrate the value they add to patient care beyond wRVUs. This free and easy-to-use cloud-based system allows the efficient quantification of value-added work activities.

ESR concept paper on value-based radiology

The European Society of Radiology (ESR) established a Working Group on Value-Based Imaging (VBI WG) in August 2016 in response to developments in European healthcare systems in general, and the trend within radiology to move from volume- to value-based practice in particular. The value-based healthcare (VBH) concept defines "value" as health outcomes achieved for patients relative to the costs of achieving them. Within this framework, value measurements start at the beginning of therapy; the whole diagnostic process is disregarded, and is considered only if it is the cause of errors or complications. Making the case for a new, multidisciplinary organisation of healthcare delivery centred on the patient, this paper establishes the diagnosis of disease as a first outcome in the interrelated activities of the healthcare chain. Metrics are proposed for measuring the quality of radiologists' diagnoses and the various ways in which radiologists provide value to patients, other medical specialists and healthcare systems at large. The ESR strongly believes value-based radiology (VBR) is a necessary complement to existing VBH concepts. The Society is determined to establish a holistic VBR programme to help European radiologists deal with changes in the evolution from volume- to value-based evaluation of radiological activities. Main Messages • Value-based healthcare defines value as patient's outcome over costs. • The VBH framework disregards the diagnosis as an outcome. • VBH considers diagnosis only if wrong or a cause of complications. • A correct diagnosis is the first outcome that matters to patients. • Metrics to measure radiologists' impacts on patient outcomes are key. • The value provided by radiology is multifaceted, going beyond exam volumes.

Patient-centered Radiology: Where Are We, Where Do We Want to Be, and How Do We Get There?

Purpose The objectives of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Patient-Centered Radiology Steering Committee survey were to (a) assess RSNA members' general attitudes and experiences concerning patient-centered radiology, with specific attention paid to radiologist-to-patient communication; (b) examine the members' barriers to communicating more directly with patients; and (c) explore their perceptions of how such barriers can be overcome. Materials and Methods A total of 5999 radiologists were invited by e-mail to complete an anonymous electronic survey developed by the Steering Committee and the RSNA Department of Research. Participants were asked to identify aspects of patient-centered care important to their practice, report on their interactions with patients, and share their opinions on radiologist-patient communication. Statistical analyses were performed by using the χ² test and analysis of variance. Results The response rate was 12% (n = 694, 109 invitations were undeliverable). Most respondents (89%, 611 of 684) agreed that promoting awareness of the role of radiology in patients' overall health care is important to how they practice. The majority (73%, 421 of 575) reported that time or workload frequently prevented them from communicating directly with patients. The majority (74%, 423 of 572) reported that a personal sense of satisfaction was likely to motivate them to communicate more directly with patients, but many commented that changes to reimbursement and compensation would help them communicate with patients more directly. Conclusion Many radiologists support the concept of communicating more directly with patients but report they are constrained by time or workload. Changes to reimbursement schemes may help mitigate these barriers to one crucial aspect of patient-centered care. ^© RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Teaching Critical Thinking in Graduate Medical Education: Lessons Learned in Diagnostic Radiology

The 2014 Institute of Medicine report, Graduate Medical Education that Meets the Nation's Health Needs, challenged the current graduate medical training process and encouraged new opportunities to redefine the fundamental skills and abilities of the physician workforce. This workforce should be skilled in critically evaluating the current systems to improve care delivery and health. To meet these goals, current challenges, motivations, and educational models at the medical school and graduate medical education levels related to formal training in nonclinical aspects of medicine, especially critical thinking, are reviewed. Our diagnostic radiology training program is presented as a "case study" to frame the review.

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.

Impact of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on academic radiology departments' clinical, research, and education missions

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) generated significant media attention since its inception. When the law was approved in 2010, the U.S. health care system began facing multiple changes to adapt and to incorporate measures to meet the new requirements. These mandatory changes will be challenging for academic radiology departments (ARDs) since they will need to promote a shift from a volume-focused to a value-focused practice. This will affect all components of the mission of ARDs, including clinical practice, education, and research. A unique key element to success in this transition is to focus on both quality and safety, thus improving the value of radiology in the post-ACA era. Given the changes ARDs will face during the implementation of ACA, suggestions are provided on how to adapt ARDs to this new environment.

2013 ACR presidential address: a personal view on the future of radiology

In this address, John A. Patti, MD, acknowledges the celebration and success that radiologists have experienced throughout their careers but also asks incisive questions about how they will face the future. Answers to those questions require an analysis of the past, an understanding of the present, serious and penetrating introspection, and engagement of a process for moving forward. An understanding of who we are and why we do what we do is essential to facilitate the changes that will be necessary if radiologists are to control the future, rather than having the future control radiologists.

Using health services research to meet ACGME resident research requirements

Health services research is a field of research that crosses many disciplines. It represents a novel way to address the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements for scholarly activity of residents and faculty in academic radiology departments. In addition to meeting training requirements, it offers future radiologists the opportunity to develop skills that will be essential as we transition from a volume based health care delivery system to an outcome based delivery system. This report introduces examples of health services research projects and the types of data resources that are available to facilitate such projects.

Enhancing patients' experiences in radiology: through patient-radiologist interaction

In this survey-based study, we attempted to gain deeper insights into the perspectives of patients in a contemporary radiology department. How well do they understand the role of radiologists in their care? What role(s) would they like radiologists to play? Specifically, do they value the opportunity to interact directly with radiologists? And what effect do such encounters have on their assessments of the quality of their care experiences in the radiology department?

ACR white paper on teleradiology practice: a report from the Task Force on Teleradiology Practice

Teleradiology services are now embedded into the workflow of many radiology practices in the United States, driven largely by an expanding corporate model of services. This has brought opportunities and challenges to both providers and recipients of teleradiology services and has heightened the need to create best-practice guidelines for teleradiology to ensure patient primacy. To this end, the ACR Task Force on Teleradiology Practice has created this white paper to update the prior ACR communication on teleradiology and discuss the current and possible future state of teleradiology in the United States. This white paper proposes comprehensive best-practice guidelines for the practice of teleradiology, with recommendations offered regarding future actions.

Direct reporting of results to patients: the future of radiology?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Radiologists have traditionally left relaying exam results to patients in the hands of clinicians. Recent editorials have reexamined radiologists' traditional position and questioned whether radiologists should continue to remain within the confines of the reading room or increase their contact with patients. The present study addressed this issue by surveying patients directly regarding their preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey was given to all patients aged ≥ 21 years undergoing outpatient magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomographic examinations at an academic medical center and at an associated outpatient center. Responses were anonymous. Surveys were provided over a 4-week period in February and March 2011; 237 were returned.

RESULTS

The majority of patients (73%-77%) continue to prefer the practice model already established, regardless of whether the results are normal or abnormal. However, the same percentage of patients preferred to hear the results of their exams from the experts interpreting the exams. The discrepancy in these results is likely reflected in the fact that there is persistent confusion as to the role of radiologists. Although most patients correctly defined a radiologist as a physician, 40% believed that a radiologist is a technician or a nurse. A large percentage of patients (64%) responded positively to wanting to meet the radiologists interpreting their exams.

CONCLUSIONS

As radiologists, we need to reevaluate the established model of communication for reporting radiology results and consider the positive impact on patient care, and on the vitality of the radiology profession, of directly communicating with patients.

Technological innovations in digital data management and changing roles of imaging specialists in Japan

Technical innovations in digital data management pose a threat to radiologists in that can we remain in the process of clinical decision making or be assigned to a secondary role in future clinical practice. The value added to the imaging studies by diagnostic radiologists, or imaging specialists, has never been questioned more seriously.

From shared data to sharing workflow: merging PACS and teleradiology

Due to a host of technological, interface, operational and workflow limitations, teleradiology and PACS/RIS were historically developed as separate systems serving different purposes. PACS/RIS handled local radiology storage and workflow management while teleradiology addressed remote access to images. Today advanced PACS/RIS support complete site radiology workflow for attending physicians, whether on-site or remote. In parallel, teleradiology has emerged into a service of providing remote, off-hours, coverage for emergency radiology and to a lesser extent subspecialty reading to subscribing sites and radiology groups. When attending radiologists use teleradiology for remote access to a site, they may share all relevant patient data and participate in the site's workflow like their on-site peers. The operation gets cumbersome and time consuming when these radiologists serve multi-sites, each requiring a different remote access, or when the sites do not employ the same PACS/RIS/Reporting Systems and do not share the same ownership. The least efficient operation is of teleradiology companies engaged in reading for multiple facilities. As these services typically employ non-local radiologists, they are allowed to share some of the available patient data necessary to provide an emergency report but, by enlarge, they do not share the workflow of the sites they serve. Radiology stakeholders usually prefer to have their own radiologists perform all radiology tasks including interpretation of off-hour examinations. It is possible with current technology to create a system that combines the benefits of local radiology services to multiple sites with the advantages offered by adding subspecialty and off-hours emergency services through teleradiology. Such a system increases efficiency for the radiology groups by enabling all users, regardless of location, to work "local" and fully participate in the workflow of every site. We refer to such a system as SuperPACS.