Implementing a Software Solution Across Multiple Ultrasound Vendors to Auto-fill Reports with Measurement Values

Reliable transmission of ultrasound measurements into radiology reports is fraught with potential sources of error. In a conventional workflow, measurements are either written by hand on worksheets and/or dictated from worksheets or the images themselves into the radiology report. Valuable physician time is spent dictating, checking, and editing these values and this process is error-prone. Our approach was to use a transfer-software application to auto-populate measurements, with a goal of achieving >90% utilization rate by both technologists and radiologists. Implementation involved creating measurement fields for each measurement on each ultrasound unit of our multisite academic department. These fields were then mapped in both the transfer-software and the dictation software, to set up a 1:1:1 correspondence for each field. As a result, each measurement acquired by the technologist would automatically populate the radiology report within the dictation software. We created and mapped 128 fields for 39 exam templates. After implementation, technologist utilization rate was 86%-96% and overall radiologist utilization rate was 92%-93%. Radiology resident utilization rate was highest, at 95%-96%. We provide a guide for implementation and lessons learned.

Use of a web-based image reporting and tracking system for assessing abdominal imaging examination quality issues in a single practice

This article presents our local experience in the implementation of a real-time web-based system for reporting and tracking quality issues relating to abdominal imaging examinations. This system allows radiologists to electronically submit examination quality issues during clinical readouts. The submitted information is e-mailed to a designate for the given modality for further follow-up; the designate may subsequently enter text describing their response or action taken, which is e-mailed back to the radiologist. Review of 558 entries over a 6-year period demonstrated documentation of a broad range of examination quality issues, including specific issues relating to protocol deviation, post-processing errors, positioning errors, artifacts, and IT concerns. The most common issues varied among US, CT, MRI, radiography, and fluoroscopy. In addition, the most common issues resulting in a patient recall for repeat imaging (generally related to protocol deviation in MRI and US) were identified. In addition to submitting quality problems, radiologists also commonly used the tool to provide recognition of a well-performed examination. An electronic log of actions taken in response to radiologists' submissions indicated that both positive and negative feedback were commonly communicated to the performing technologist. Information generated using the tool can be used to guide subsequent quality improvement initiatives within a practice, including continued protocol standardization as well as education of technologists in the optimization of abdominal imaging examinations.