Critical Results in Radiology: Defined by Clinical Judgment or by a List?

Increasing Utilization and Improving Documentation in a Radiology Critical Alert System

Effective communication of critical imaging findings is an important patient safety issue. Despite an increase in exam volumes, our institution saw a decrease in the number of alerts sent through our critical alert system, indicating that critical findings were not being communicated. The purpose of our interventions was to increase the number of critical alerts, while also improving documentation and improving our provider database. We used a program of education for our radiologists and systematic reinforcement to increase the usage of our critical alert system. We also implemented a new time-stamp macro in our dictation system to improve documentation of emergency alerts, and engaged with other departments to improve the contact information in our provider database. Our interventions led to an increase in the monthly number of critical alerts, most notably for findings that require clinical or imaging follow-up (17 alerts per month). There was also a steady improvement in documentation (96.9% compliance), along with an increase in the number of alerts to providers with current contact information (0.5% per month). Our efforts show that educational and collaborative efforts can result in improved communication of radiologic critical results.

Novel Quality Measure Set: Closing the Completion Loop on Radiology Follow-up Recommendations for Noncritical Actionable Incidental Findings

BACKGROUND

Care gaps occur when radiology follow-up recommendations are poorly communicated or not completed, resulting in missed or delayed diagnosis potentially leading to worse patient outcomes. This ACR-led initiative assembled a technical expert panel (TEP) to advise development of quality measures intended to improve communication and drive increased completion rates for radiology follow-up recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multistakeholder TEP was assembled to advise the development of quality measures. The project scope, limited to noncritical actionable incidental findings (AIFs), encourages practices to develop and implement systems ensuring appropriate communication and follow-up to completion.

RESULTS

A suite of nine measures were developed: four outcome measures include closing the loop on completion of radiology follow-up recommendations for nonemergent AIFs (with pulmonary nodule and abdominal aortic aneurysm use cases) and overall cancer diagnoses. Five process measures address communication and tracking of AIFs: inclusion of available evidence or guidelines informing the recommendation, communication of AIFs to the practice managing ongoing care, identifying when AIFs have been communicated to the patient, and employing tracking and reminder systems for AIFs.

CONCLUSION

This ACR-led initiative developed a measure set intended to improve patient outcomes by ensuring that AIFs are appropriately communicated and followed up. The intent of these measures is to focus improvement on specific areas in which gaps in communication and AIF follow-up may occur, prompting systems to devote resources that will identify and implement solutions to improve patient care.

What Is It We Do Here?

We argue radiologists generate most of their value by serving as translators and communicators-linguists skilled in the languages of imaging. The disconnect between these core functions and how radiology practices are paid impedes our efforts to maximize value. We believe more investigation is needed to optimize the fidelity of our translations and the coherence, visibility, and actionability of our communications.