Understanding and Applying the Concept of Value Creation in Radiology

The role of the radiologist in the prostate cancer multidisciplinary conference

The broad range of disease aggressiveness together with imperfect screening, diagnostic, and treatment options in prostate cancer (PCa) makes medical decision-making complex. The primary goal of a multidisciplinary conference is to improve patient outcomes by combining evidence-based data and expert opinion to discuss optimal management, including for those patients with challenging presentations. The primary purpose of the genitourinary imaging specialist in the prostate cancer multidisciplinary conference is to use imaging findings to reduce uncertainty by answering clinical questions. In this review, we discuss the role and the opportunities for an imaging specialist to add value in the care of men with prostate cancer discussed at multidisciplinary conferences.

Prevalence of "One-Off Events" in Radiology: Implications for Radiology in Episode-Based Alternative Payment Models

OBJECTIVE

As reimbursement mechanisms become more value-based, there are questions about the applicability of these mechanisms for nonepisodic care, particularly care provided by nonpatient-facing specialists, for example, radiologists. Accordingly, this study examined the prevalence of nonepisodic care-one-off events-in diagnostic radiology.

METHODS

We conducted a multiyear (2015-2019) retrospective study of diagnostic imaging using a large commercial payer database including commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage. Using a 12-month evaluation period starting with the day of the initial imaging study/studies, we categorized imaging studies as one-off events if there were no additional studies (beyond the first day of the evaluation period) for the next 12 months in the same body region. We also evaluated an alternative, more stringent definition of a one-off event: the only imaging study during the 12-month evaluation period. We computed the percentage of one-off events overall and by body region.

RESULTS

We found that one-off events comprised 33.2%-45.8% of imaging studies depending on whether one-off events are defined as the only study in the evaluation period or imaging only on the first day of the evaluation period, respectively. This share varied widely by body region: highest for cardiac (80.9%-87.7%) and lower for chest (26.8%-35.2%). By place-of-service, the proportion was lowest for the inpatient (12.9%-29.1%) and long-term care settings (18.6%-30%).

DISCUSSION

Given the sizeable share of imaging studies categorized as one-off events, much of radiologists' workload falls outside of the framework of episodic measurement tools and value-based payment models.

Diagnostic radiology and its future: what do clinicians need and think?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the view of clinicians on diagnostic radiology and its future.

METHODS

Corresponding authors who published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet between 2010 and 2022 were asked to participate in a survey about diagnostic radiology and its future.

RESULTS

The 331 participating clinicians gave a median score of 9 on a 0-10 point scale to the value of medical imaging in improving patient-relevant outcomes. 40.6%, 15.1%, 18.9%, and 9.5% of clinicians indicated to interpret more than half of radiography, ultrasonography, CT, and MRI examinations completely by themselves, without consulting a radiologist or reading the radiology report. Two hundred eighty-nine clinicians (87.3%) expected an increase in medical imaging utilization in the coming 10 years, whereas 9 clinicians (2.7%) expected a decrease. The need for diagnostic radiologists in the coming 10 years was expected to increase by 162 clinicians (48.9%), to remain stable by 85 clinicians (25.7%), and to decrease by 47 clinicians (14.2%). Two hundred clinicians (60.4%) expected that artificial intelligence (AI) will not make diagnostic radiologists redundant in the coming 10 years, whereas 54 clinicians (16.3%) thought the opposite.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians who published in the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet attribute high value to medical imaging. They generally need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation, but for a considerable proportion of radiographs, their service is not required. Most expect medical imaging utilization and the need for diagnostic radiologists to increase in the foreseeable future, and do not expect AI to make radiologists redundant.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The views of clinicians on radiology and its future may be used to determine how radiology should be practiced and be further developed.

KEY POINTS

• Clinicians generally regard medical imaging as high-value care and expect to use more medical imaging in the future. • Clinicians mainly need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation while they interpret a substantial proportion of radiographs completely by themselves. • The majority of clinicians expects that the need for diagnostic radiologists will not decrease (half of them even expect that we need more) and does not believe that AI will replace radiologists.

Health Systems Science - A Primer for Radiologists

Health systems science (HSS) is an educational framework designed to promote improved care through enhanced citizenship and the training of systems-fluent individuals trained in the science of health care delivery.  HSS education in residency builds upon foundations established during medical school, emphasizing practical skills development, and fostering a growth mindset among trainees.  The HSS framework organizes elements of system-based practice for radiology trainees, promoting practice-readiness for providing safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable and patient centered radiological care. This paper serves as a primer for radiologists to understand and apply the HSS framework. Additionally, we highlight radiology-specific curricular elements aligned with the HSS framework, and provide teaching resources both for classroom education and for resident self-study.

Radiologists Help Each Other to Improve Efficiency by Decreasing the Time to Look Up a Patient's Relevant Clinical History in the Electronic Medical Record

The study aims to prove that it takes less time to look up relevant clinical history from an electronic medical record (EMR) if the information is already provided in a specific space in the EMR by a fellow radiologist. Patients with complex oncological and surgical histories need frequent imaging, and every time a radiologist may spend a significant amount of time looking up the same clinical information as their peers. In collaboration with ACMIO and Radiant Epic team, a space labeled "Specialty Comments" was added to the SNAPSHOT of patient's chart in EMR. For our research purpose, the specialty comment was labeled as boxed history as a variable for data analysis. If the history was not provided in that particular space, it was labeled as without boxed history. Inclusion criteria included outpatients with complex oncological histories undergoing CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis with IV contrast. The time to look up history (LUT) was documented in minutes and seconds. Two assistant professors from Abdominal Imaging provided LUT. A total of 85 cases were included in the study, 39 with boxed history and 46 without boxed history. Comparing averages of the individual reader means for history, mean LUT differed by 2.03 min (without boxed history) versus 0.57 min (with boxed history), p < 0.0001. The t-test and the nonparametric Wilcoxon tests for a difference in the population means were highly significant (p < 0.0001). A history directed to radiologist's needs resulted in a statistically significant decrease in time spent by interpreting radiologists to look through the electronic medical records for patients with complex oncological histories. Availability of history pertinent to radiology has wide-ranging advantages, including quality reporting, decrease in turnaround time, reduction in interpretation errors, and radiologists' continued learning. The space for documenting clinical history may be reproduced, or some similar area may be developed by optimizing the electronic medical records.

Causes and diagnostic utility of musculoskeletal MRI recall examinations

AIM

To determine the causes and diagnostic utility of musculoskeletal (MSK) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) recall examinations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An institutional review board-approved retrospective review was conducted of all MSK MRI examinations performed at a single academic institution over 10 years where radiologists requested the patient return for additional imaging. The reason for the recall was documented. Recalls were reviewed in consensus by two MSK radiologists to determine whether additional sequences resulted in a change in the final report. Recall causes were divided into four categories: (1) radiologist-related: incorrect field of view (FOV) or incorrect protocol; (2) technologist-related: incorrect FOV or incorrect/incomplete protocol performed, or technically poor-quality images; (3) patient-related motion artefact; (4) unexpected lesion discovered. Fisher's exact test was used to assess for statistical significance.

RESULTS

The recall rate was 0.25% (156/62,930). Of the total 129 recalls returning for imaging, 42 (33%) were radiologist-related, 45 (35%) were technologist-related, six (5%) were patient-related, and 36 (28%) had an unexpected lesion requiring additional sequences. For clinical utility, 42% resulted in a change from the initial report. Recalls due to radiologist error, incorrect FOV, or unexpected lesion caused a significant change in the final report; however, recalls due to technologist error, patient motion artefact, or incorrect protocol did not.

CONCLUSION

MRI MSK recalls are uncommon, and the most common reasons are incorrect FOV, incorrect protocol, and unexpected lesion. Radiologist-related errors in protocols and FOV led to a significant change in the final report and should be targeted as areas for improvement to reduce recall examinations.

Radiology in the Era of Value-Based Healthcare: A Multi Society Expert Statement From the ACR, CAR, ESR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA

BACKGROUND

The Value-Based Healthcare (VBH) concept is designed to improve individual healthcare outcomes without increasing expenditure, and is increasingly being used to determine resourcing of and reimbursement for medical services. Radiology is a major contributor to patient and societal healthcare at many levels. Despite this, some VBH models do not acknowledge radiology's central role; this may have future negative consequences for resource allocation.

METHODS, FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION

This multi-society paper, representing the views of Radiology Societies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, describes the place of radiology in VBH models and the health-care value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined.

Radiology in the Era of Value-Based Healthcare: A Multi-Society Expert Statement From the ACR, CAR, ESR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA

BACKGROUND

The Value-Based Healthcare (VBH) concept is designed to improve individual healthcare outcomes without increasing expenditure, and is increasingly being used to determine resourcing of and reimbursement for medical services. Radiology is a major contributor to patient and societal healthcare at many levels. Despite this, some VBH models do not acknowledge radiology's central role; this may have future negative consequences for resource allocation.

METHODS, FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION

This multi-society paper, representing the views of Radiology Societies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, describes the place of radiology in VBH models and the health-care value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined.

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

Background

The Value-Based Healthcare (VBH) concept is designed to improve individual healthcare outcomes without increasing expenditure, and is increasingly being used to determine resourcing of and reimbursement for medical services. Radiology is a major contributor to patient and societal healthcare at many levels. Despite this, some VBH models do not acknowledge radiology’s central role; this may have future negative consequences for resource allocation.

Methods, findings and interpretation

This multi-society paper, representing the views of Radiology Societies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, describes the place of radiology in VBH models and the healthcare value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined.

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

BACKGROUND

The value-based healthcare (VBH) concept is designed to improve individual healthcare outcomes without increasing expenditure and is increasingly being used to determine resourcing of and reimbursement for medical services. Radiology is a major contributor to patient and societal healthcare at many levels. Despite this, some VBH models do not acknowledge radiology's central role; this may have future negative consequences for resource allocation.

METHODS, FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION

This multi-society paper, representing the views of Radiology Societies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, describes the place of radiology in VBH models and the healthcare value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined.

Radiology in the Era of Value-based Healthcare: A Multi-Society Expert Statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA

Background The Value-Based Healthcare (VBH) concept is designed to improve individual healthcare outcomes without increasing expenditure, and is increasingly being used to determine resourcing of and reimbursement for medical services. Radiology is a major contributor to patient and societal healthcare at many levels. Despite this, some VBH models do not acknowledge radiology's central role; this may have future negative consequences for resource allocation. Methods, findings and interpretation This multi-society paper, representing the views of Radiology Societies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, describes the place of radiology in VBH models and the health-care value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

The Role of Radiology in the Diagnostic Process: Information, Communication, and Teamwork

OBJECTIVE

The diagnostic radiology process represents a partnership between clinical and radiology teams. As such, breakdowns in interpersonal interactions and communication can result in patient harm.

CONCLUSION

We explore the role of radiology in the diagnostic process, focusing on key concepts of information and communication, as well as key interpersonal interactions of teamwork, collaboration, and collegiality, all based on trust. We propose 10 principles to facilitate effective information flow in the diagnostic process.