Government reform of the National Health Service: implications for radiologists and diagnostic services

It is About "Time": Academic Neuroradiologist Time Distribution for Interpreting Brain MRIs

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Efficiency is central to current radiology practice. Knowledge of report generation timing is essential for workload optimization and departmental staffing decisions. Yet little research evaluates the distribution of activities performed by neuroradiologists in daily work.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This observational study tracked radiologists interpreting 358 brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in an academic practice over 9 months. We measured the total duration from study opening to report signing and times for five activities performed during this period: image viewing, report transcription, obtaining clinical data, education, and other. Attendings, fellows, and residents reading studies independently and attendings over-reading trainee-previewed studies were observed.

RESULTS

Ten attendings, 12 fellows, and 13 residents spent a mean of 11, 18, and 16 minutes reading brain MRIs independently. Mean duration was significantly different comparing attendings in all assignments to fellows (18.36 ± 1.05 minutes, p = 0.0001) or residents (16.31 ± 1.11 minutes, p = 0.001) but not between fellows/residents. Mean duration among attendings reading independently versus over-reading trainees was not statistically different. Attendings spent the same time on image viewing (4.07-5.33 minutes) with or without trainees. Attending transcription time was shortest when over-reading trainees (2.24 minutes) and longest when reading independently (4.20 minutes), demonstrating benefit of the draft report. Fellows and Residents spent longer on image viewing (7.14 minutes and 8.06 minutes, respectively) and transcription (7.02 minutes and 5.40 minutes, respectively) than attendings reading independently.

CONCLUSION

Neuroradiologist time/activity distributions for reading brain MRI studies were measured, setting the stage to establish a benchmark for future reference and suggesting opportunities for greater efficiency. Furthermore, report production time can be decreased when a draft report is available.

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.

The role of a consultant radiologist--are patients still in the dark?

Little is known regarding public awareness of the roles and responsibilities of a consultant radiologist. Between 1 April and 20 May 2008, 916 outpatients attending our radiology department completed a questionnaire addressing this issue. We found public perception variable. Thirty-six percent of respondents thought we were responsible for choosing appropriate imaging; only 65% perceived that we reported studies. Another 38% felt that we did not play an important role in their treatment, and 38% considered that we were not part of their medical team. Thirty-two percent of respondents preferred their hospital consultant to give them their imaging results, with 17% preferring this to come from the radiologist. There is significant under-appreciation of the roles and responsibilities of a consultant radiologist. It is important that we educate the public to ensure that future health policy reflects the increasingly central role imaging plays in health-care delivery.

Radiology report turnaround: expectations and solutions

The ultimate work product of a radiology department is a finalized radiology report. Radiology stakeholders are now demanding faster report turnaround times (RTAT) and anything that delays delivery of the finalized report will undermine the value of a radiology department. Traditional reporting methods are inherently inefficient and the desire to deliver fast RTAT will always be challenged. It is only through the adoption of an integrated radiology information system (RIS)/picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and voice recognition (VR) system that RTAT can consistently meet stakeholder expectations. VR systems also offer the opportunity to create standardized, higher quality reports.