Affinity Chart Analysis: A Method for Structured Collection, Aggregation, and Response to Customer Needs in Radiology

Reducing Delays in MRIs Under Sedation and General Anesthesia Using Quality Improvement Tools

OBJECTIVE

Develop structured, quality improvement interventions to achieve a 15%-point reduction in MRIs performed under sedation or general anesthesia (GA) delayed more than 15 min within a 6-month period.

METHODS

A prospective audit of MRIs under sedation or GA from January 2022 to June 2023 was conducted. A multidisciplinary team performed process mapping and root cause analysis for delays. Interventions were developed and implemented over four Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycles, targeting workflow standardization, preadmission patient counseling, reinforcing adherence to scheduled scan times and written consent respectively. Delay times (compared with Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests), delays more than 15 min and delays of 60 min or more at baseline and after each PDSA cycle were recorded.

RESULTS

In all, 627 MRIs under sedation or GA were analyzed, comprising 443 at baseline and 184 postimplementation. Of the 627, 556 (88.7%) scans were performed under sedation, 22 (3.5%) under monitored anesthesia care, and 49 (7.8%) under GA. At baseline, 71.6% (317 of 443) scans were delayed over 15 min and 28.2% (125 of 443) scans by 60 min or more, with a median delay of 30 min. Postimplementation, there was a 34.7%-point reduction in scans delayed more than 15 min, a 17.5%-point reduction in scans delayed by 60 min or more, and a reduction in median delay time by 15 min (P < .001).

DISCUSSION

Structured interventions significantly reduced delays in MRIs under sedation and GA, potentially improving outcomes for both patients and providers. Key factors included a diversity of perspectives in the study team, continued stakeholder engagement and structured quality improvement tools including PDSA cycles.

What to report in sellar tumor MRI? A nationwide survey among German pituitary surgeons, radiation oncologists, and endocrinologists

PURPOSE

While MRI has become the imaging modality of choice in the diagnosis of sellar tumors, no systematic attempt has yet been made to align radiological reporting of findings with the information needed by the various medical disciplines dealing with these patients. Therefore, we aimed to determine the prevailing preferences in this regard through a nationwide expert survey.

METHODS

First, an interdisciplinary literature-based catalog of potential reporting elements for sellar tumor MRI examinations was created. Subsequently, a web-based survey regarding the clinical relevance of these items was conducted among board certified members of the German Society of Neurosurgery, German Society of Radiation Oncology, and the Pituitary Working Group of the German Society of Endocrinology.

RESULTS

A total of 95 experts (40 neurosurgeons, 28 radiation oncologists, and 27 endocrinologists) completed the survey. The description of the exact tumor location, size, and involvement of the anatomic structures adjacent to the sella turcica (optic chiasm, cavernous sinus, and skull base), occlusive hydrocephalus, relationship to the pituitary gland and infundibulum, and certain structural characteristics of the mass (cyst formation, hemorrhage, and necrosis) was rated most important (> 75% agreement). In contrast, the characterization of anatomic features of the nasal cavity and sphenoid sinus as well as the findings of advanced MRI techniques (e.g., perfusion and diffusion imaging) was considered relevant by less than 50% of respondents.

CONCLUSION

To optimally address the information needs of the interdisciplinary treatment team, MRI reports of sellar masses should primarily focus on the accurate description of tumor location, size, internal structure, and involvement of adjacent anatomic compartments.

MRT-Befundung hirneigener Tumoren

Hintergrund und Ziel

Eine strukturierte MRT-Befundung unter Verwendung konsensbasierter inhaltlicher Kategorien hat das Potenzial, die interdisziplinäre Kommunikation in der Neuroonkologie zu verbessern. Ziel dieser Studie war es daher, mittels einer bundesweiten Befragung von Mitgliedern medizinischer Fachgesellschaften mit neuroonkologischem Bezug die wesentlichen Befundungskategorien der Bildgebung hirneigener Tumoren aus klinischer Perspektive zu ermitteln.

Material und Methoden

Auf der Basis eines interdisziplinär entwickelten Katalogs von MRT-Befundungselementen wurde ein Online-Fragebogen erstellt. Im Anschluss wurden fachärztliche Mitglieder der Deutschen Gesellschaften für Neurochirurgie, Radioonkologie, Hämatologie und Medizinische Onkologie, Neurologie und Neuropathologie dazu eingeladen, die Items hinsichtlich ihrer klinischen Relevanz zu bewerten.

Ergebnisse

An der Umfrage nahmen insgesamt 171 Fachärzte aus dem Bundesgebiet teil (81 Neurochirurgen, 66 Strahlentherapeuten und 24 andere neuroonkologische Experten). Anzahl und anatomische Ausdehnung der Tumoren in einer kontrastmittelverstärkten T1- und 2‑D-T2-Sequenz (98,8 % vs. 97,1 %) sowie neu diagnostizierte Läsionen bei Folgeuntersuchungen (T1 + Kontrast 98,2 %; T2 94,7 %) wurden am häufigsten als essenziell betrachtet. Darüber hinaus beurteilten die Experten insbesondere die Beschreibung einer ependymalen und/oder leptomeningealen Tumordissemination (93,6 %) sowie Zeichen der Raumforderung inklusive Verschlusshydrozephalus und parenchymale Massenverschiebungen (jeweils > 75,0 %) als wesentlich. Eine standardmäßige Erwähnung von intratumoralen Verkalkungen, Hämorrhagien, Tumorgefäßarchitektur oder erweiterter Bildgebungsmethoden wie MR-Perfusion, Diffusion, Traktographie und Protonenspektroskopie bewertete lediglich eine Minderheit der Umfrageteilnehmer als praxisrelevant.

Schlussfolgerung

Ein zuweiserorientierter inhaltlicher Mindeststandard der magnetresonanztomographischen Hirntumordiagnostik sollte als klinisch relevante Kernelemente die exakte anatomische Ausbreitung der Raumforderung(en) inklusive ependymaler und meningealer Beteiligung sowie die einschlägigen Raumforderungszeichen enthalten.

Structured Reporting in Neuroradiology: Intracranial Tumors

Purpose

The aim of this pilot study was to assess the clinical feasibility, diagnostic yield, advantages, and disadvantages of structured reporting for routine MRI-reading in patients with primary diagnosis of intracranial tumors as compared to traditional neuroradiological free text reporting.

Methods

A structured MRI reporting template was developed covering pathological, anatomical, and functional aspects in an itemized fashion. Retrospectively, 60 consecutive patients with first diagnosis of an intracranial tumor were selected from the radiology information system/PACS system. Structured reporting was performed by a senior neuroradiologist, blinded to clinical and radiological data. Reporting times were measured per patient. The diagnostic content was compared to free text reporting which was independently performed on the same MRI exams by two other neuroradiologists. The comparisons were categorized per item as: "congruent," "partially congruent," "incongruent," or "not mentioned in free-style report."

Results

Tumor-related items: congruent findings were found for all items (17/17) with congruence rates ranging between 98 and 39% per item. Four items achieved congruence rates ≥90%, 5 items >80%, and 9 items ≥70%. Partially congruent findings were found for all items in up to 50% per item. Incongruent findings were present in 7/17 items in up to 5% per item. Free text reports did not mention 12 of 17 items (range 7-43% per item). Non-tumor-related items, including brain atrophy, microangiopathy, vascular pathologies, and various extracranial pathologies, which were not mentioned in free-text reports between 18 and 85% per item. Mean reporting time for structured reporting was 7:49 min (3:12-17:06 min).

Conclusion

First results showed that expert structured reporting ensured reliable detection of all relevant brain pathologies along with reproducible documentation of all predefined diagnostic items, which was not always the case for free text reporting. A mean reporting time of 8 min per patient seems clinically feasible.