Measuring and managing radiologist workload: Measuring radiologist reporting times using data from a Radiology Information System

Abstract

Introduction: Historically, there has been no objective method of measuring the time required for radiologists to produce reports during normal work. We have created a technique for semi-automated measurement of radiologist reporting time, and through it produced a robust set of absolute time requirements and relative value units for consultant reporting of diagnostic examinations in our hospital. Methods: A large sample of reporting times, recorded automatically by the Radiology Information System (COMRAD, Software Innovations, Christchurch, New Zealand) along with the description of each examination being reported, was placed in a database. Analysis was confined to diagnostic reporting by consultant radiologists. A spreadsheet was produced, listing the total number and the frequency of reporting times of each distinct examination. Outliers with exceptionally long report times (more than 10 min for plain radiography, 30 min for ultrasound, or 60 min for CT or MRI with some exceptions) were culled; this removed 9.5% of the total. Complex CTs requiring separate workstation time were assigned times by consensus. The median time for the remainder of each sample was the assigned absolute reporting time in minutes and seconds. Relative value units were calculated using the reporting time for a single view department chest X-ray of 1 min 38 s including verifying a report made using speech recognition software. Results: A schedule of absolute and relative values, based on over 179 000 reports, forms Table 2 of this paper. Conclusions:The technique provides a schedule of reporting times with reduced subjective input, which is more robust than existing systems for measuring reporting time.

Radiologists’ Variation of Time to Read Across Different Procedure Types

“…In addition, there are large variations between radiology groups and subspecialties [7][8][9][10], and most notably time spent on interpreting and reporting a case is at large unknown. A few exceptions can be found, for example in [11], where measured reporting times was used to determine actual RVUs for a set of procedure types, or in [12], where the work of three radiologists was closely monitored and a low overall correlation between time to read and RVU was found.…”

Development of a local relative value unit to measure radiologists’ computed tomography reporting workload

“…As the US‐RVU was developed in the US context, it is not known whether it can be used to normalize radiologists’ productivity in the current multidetector CT era or in different contexts. Indeed, the use of locally validated methods to address radiologists’ workload and productivity seems to be more adequate . Particularly, the Pitman–Jones and the Cowan RVU illustrate efforts to capture the Australian/New Zealand context and seem to provide figures that differ from the US‐RVU …”

Measuring and managing radiologist workload: A method for quantifying radiologist activities and calculating the full‐time equivalents required to operate a service

“…Mean reporting times per examination by modality were calculated from data extracted from the radiology information system …”

“…Mean report times for each modality were calculated using the technique described by Cowan (). This included calculation of mean times for the reports associated with procedural type work including that undertaken in mammography (which is specifically problem mammography at our institution, i.e., the assessment and workup of patients with known lesions), interventional radiology and fluoroscopy.…”