ABSTRACT
In the rapidly evolving digital radiology landscape, a surge in solutions has emerged including more than 500 artificial intelligence applications that have received 510 k clearance by the FDA. Moreover, there is an extensive number of non-regulated applications, specifically designed to enhance workflow efficiency within radiology departments. These efficiency applications offer tremendous opportunities to resolve operational pain points and improve efficiency for radiology practices worldwide. However, selecting the most effective workflow efficiency applications presents a major challenge due to the multitude of available solutions and unclear evaluation criteria. In this article, we share our perspective on how to structure the broad field of workflow efficiency applications and how to objectively assess individual solutions. Along the different stages of the radiology workflow, we highlight 31 key operational pain points that radiology practices face and match them with features of workflow efficiency apps aiming to address them. A framework to guide practices in assessing and curating workflow efficiency applications is introduced, addressing key dimensions, including a solution's pain point coverage, efficiency claim strength, evidence and credibility, ease of integration, and usability. We apply this framework in a large-scale analysis of workflow efficiency applications in the market, differentiating comprehensive workflow efficiency ecosystems seeking to address a multitude of pain points through a unified solution from workflow efficiency niche apps following a targeted approach to address individual pain points. Furthermore, we propose an approach to quantify the financial benefits generated by different types of applications that can be leveraged for return-on-investment calculations.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: A comprehensive return on investment (ROI) calculator was developed to evaluate the monetary and nonmonetary benefits of an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered radiology diagnostic imaging platform to inform decision makers interested in adopting AI. METHODS: A calculator was constructed to calculate comparative costs, estimated revenues, and quantify the clinical value of using an AI platform compared with no use of AI in radiology workflows of a US hospital over a 5-year time horizon. Parameters were determined on the basis of expert interviews and a literature review. Scenario and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate calculator drivers. RESULTS: In the calculator, the introduction of an AI platform into the hospital radiology workflow resulted in labor time reductions and delivery of an ROI of 451% over a 5-year period. The ROI was increased to 791% when radiologist time savings were considered. Time savings for radiologists included more than 15 8-hour working days of waiting time, 78 days in triage time, 10 days in reading time, and 41 days in reporting time. Using the platform also provided revenue benefits for the hospital in bringing in patients for clinically beneficial follow-up scans, hospitalizations, and treatment procedures. Results were sensitive to the time horizon, health center setting, and number of scans performed. Among those, the most influential outcome was the number of additional necessary treatments performed because of AI identification of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The authors demonstrate a substantial 5-year ROI of implementing an AI platform in a stroke management-accredited hospital. The ROI calculator may be useful for decision makers evaluating AI-powered radiology platforms.
ABSTRACT
With advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) dominating the headlines, diagnostic imaging radiology is no exception to the accelerating role that AI is playing in today's technology landscape. The number of AI-driven radiology diagnostic imaging applications (digital diagnostics) that are both commercially available and in-development is rapidly expanding as are the potential benefits these tools can deliver for patients and providers alike. Healthcare providers seeking to harness the potential benefits of digital diagnostics may consider evaluating these tools and their corresponding use cases in a systematic and structured manner to ensure optimal capital deployment, resource utilization, and, ultimately, patient outcomes-or clinical utility. We propose several guiding themes when using clinical utility to curate digital diagnostics.
