Electronic imaging impact on image and report turnaround times

Mattern, Christopher W. T.; King, Bernard F.; Hangiandreou, Nicholas J.; Swenson, Allan; Jorgenson, L L; Webbles, William E.; Okrzynski, Trice W.; Erickson, Bradley J.; Williamson, Byrn; Forbes, Glenn S.

doi:10.1007/bf03168787

Cited by 28 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another study reported negative findings [149]. This study reported that implementation of PACS and automated scheduler increased the PEWT from 0.12 to 0.27 h. Three studies reported mixed results [143,144,147,148,151]. For example one study [151] evaluated a combination of interventions and found that better staffing level, technology (use of SRR) improved RTAT while proposed sanction on non-compliance with RTAT target and education of staff on the need to comply with RTAT requirements did not improve RTAT.…”

Section: Multiple Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Most of the studies combined multiple PETs [141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150]. The remainder combined quality management methodologies (QMMs) with PETs [151][152][153][154].…”

Section: Multiple Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies used varied research designs including the post-intervention only design [147,148] and the uncontrolled pre-and post-intervention design. In terms of outcome measure, most of the studies reported RTAT [141,142,[146][147][148][151][152][153][154], two studies measured TRWT [143][144][145] and one study reported the PEWT [149].…”

Section: Multiple Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effectiveness of Service Delivery Initiatives at Improving Patients’ Waiting Times in Clinical Radiology Departments: A Systematic Review

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We reviewed the literature for the impact of service delivery initiatives (SDIs) on patients' waiting times within radiology departments. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, INSPEC and The Cochrane Library for relevant articles published between 1995 and February, 2013. The Cochrane EPOC risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias on studies that met specified design criteria. Fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The types of SDI implemented included extended scope practice (ESP, three studies), quality management (12 studies), productivity-enhancing technologies (PETs, 29 studies), multiple interventions (11 studies), outsourcing and pay-for-performance (one study each). The uncontrolled pre-and post-intervention and the postintervention designs were used in 54 (95 %) of the studies. The reporting quality was poor: many of the studies did not test and/or report the statistical significance of their results. The studies were highly heterogeneous, therefore metaanalysis was inappropriate. The following type of SDIs showed promising results: extended scope practice; quality management methodologies including Six Sigma, Lean methodology, and continuous quality improvement; productivityenhancing technologies including speech recognition reporting, teleradiology and computerised physician order entry systems. We have suggested improved study design and the mapping of the definitions of patient waiting times in radiology to generic timelines as a starting point for moving towards a situation where it becomes less restrictive to compare and/or pool the results of future studies in a meta-analysis.

show abstract

Section: Multiple Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Multiple Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Multiple Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effectiveness of Service Delivery Initiatives at Improving Patients’ Waiting Times in Clinical Radiology Departments: A Systematic Review

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because a PACS eliminates workload by reducing the number of hard-copy films produced (also saving money), is as reliable as a hard-copy environment, and decreases the number of lost film images, it has found a high acceptance rate in radiology departments (5,11,12). Several studies (1,5,11,(13)(14)(15)(16)(17) have shown an apparent reduction in the time of image delivery to the radiologist, retrieval of images, interpretation, and total report turnaround with use of a PACS. Integration of a PACS into the hospital information system and RIS has an additional positive impact on report turnaround time and communication between physicians (18 -20).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Pager Notification on Report Verification Times

Oğuz¹,

Yousem²,

Deluca³

et al. 2002

Academic Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

verification times of each physician were collected for 3 months in the years before and after initiation of the PNS. Radiologists enrolled in the PNS and those who were not were assigned into two groups for analysis. Mean TOVs for the two sets of 3 months and for the two groups were calculated and differences recorded. Two-tailed t tests were used to assess for statistical differences between the groups.Results. Twenty-nine of 37 radiologists voluntarily enrolled in the PNS (group 1). Mean TOV was 26.75 hours (standard deviation [SD] ϭ 17.76) for these physicians before and 14.48 hours (SD ϭ 11.86) after the PNS was employed (P Ͻ .01). For those physicians who did not enroll in the PNS, mean TOV was 11.53 hours (SD ϭ 5.55) before and 9.77 hours (SD ϭ 9.86) after the PNS was employed (P ϭ .33). Both the absolute and percentage reductions in TOVs were significantly greater for those physicians enrolled in the PNS than for those who were not (P ϭ .035). Twenty-three of 29 (79%) physicians who used the PNS showed a reduction in their report turnaround times. Conclusion.Linking the PNS with the radiology information system to notify physicians of unsigned reports was effective in reducing report verification times.Key Words. Clinical operations, radiology reporting, economics. © AUR, 2002Improving turnaround times for radiology reports has been one of the major concerns in a practice. In addition to improving communication between physicians by producing an official report more rapidly, a reduction in turnaround times can also produce increased revenue because of the fewer days during which charges are in accounts receivable (1-8). Report turnaround times are also one of the standards regulated by the American College of Radiology (Standard for Communication-Diagnostic Radiology), accreditation organizations, utilization review panels, and some managed care organizations. From a medicolegal standpoint, a single untoward event resulting from a delay in transcription and report verification could lead to a monetary settlement that far outweighs the cost of extra transcriptionists or information technology solutions.As some departments have evolved from paper production of radiology reports to a complete electronic patient record, use of electronic signatures in radiology reports has become common. Previously, transcribed paper reports could be placed at the radiologist's location for immediate signature after a transcriptionist concluded a parcel of work. Whether those reports actually were signed immediately, were edited and retyped, or were left for Acad Radiol 2002; 9:954 -959

show abstract

“…Today, most hospitals in the developed world have a PACS and many have replaced their original systems with either different systems (i.e., different vendors) or updated versions of their original systems. Many studies have been published evaluating the impact of PACS on the radiology department and the hospital [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Broadly speaking, the evaluations can be divided into two categories: studies measuring productivity and studies analyzing the factors influencing the level of user satisfaction and adoption.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Task–Technology Fit in a PACS Upgrade: Do Users’ and Developers’ Appraisals Converge?

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to measure users' perceived benefits of a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) upgrade, and compare their responses to those predicted by developers. The Task-Technology Fit (TTF) model served as the theoretical framework to study the relation between TTF, utilization, and perceived benefits. A self-administered survey was distributed to radiologists working in a university hospital undergoing a PACS upgrade. Four variables were measured: impact, utilization, TTF, and perceived net benefits. The radiologists were divided into subgroups according to their utilization profiles. Analysis of variance was performed and the hypotheses were tested with regression analysis. Interviews were conducted with developers involved in the PACS upgrade who were asked to predict impact and TTF. Users identified only a moderate fit between the PACS enhancements and their tasks, while developers predicted a high level of TTF. The combination of a moderate fit and an underestimation of the potential impact of changes in the PACS led to a low score for perceived net benefits. Results varied significantly among user subgroups. Globally, the data support the hypotheses that TTF predicts utilization and perceived net benefits, but not that utilization predicts perceived net benefits. TTF is a valid tool to assess perceived benefits, but it is important to take into account the characteristics of users. In the context of a technology that is rapidly evolving, there needs to be an alignment of what users perceive as a good fit and the functionality developers incorporate into their products.

show abstract

Electronic imaging impact on image and report turnaround times

Cited by 28 publications

References 11 publications

The Effectiveness of Service Delivery Initiatives at Improving Patients’ Waiting Times in Clinical Radiology Departments: A Systematic Review

The Effectiveness of Service Delivery Initiatives at Improving Patients’ Waiting Times in Clinical Radiology Departments: A Systematic Review

Impact of Pager Notification on Report Verification Times

Assessing Task–Technology Fit in a PACS Upgrade: Do Users’ and Developers’ Appraisals Converge?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About