Financial Impact of a Radiology Safety Net Program for Resolution of Clinically Necessary Follow-up Imaging Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: Health care safety net (SN) programs can potentially improve patient safety and decrease risk associated with missed or delayed follow-up care, although they require financial resources. This study aimed to assess whether the revenue generated from completion of clinically necessary recommendations for additional imaging (RAI) made possible by an IT-enabled SN program could fund the required additional labor resources. METHODS: Clinically necessary RAI generated October 21, 2019, to September 24, 2021, were tracked to resolution as of April 13, 2023. A new radiology SN team worked with existing schedulers and care coordinators, performing chart review and patient and provider outreach to ensure RAI resolution. We applied relevant Current Procedural Terminology, version 4 codes of the completed imaging examinations to estimate total revenue. Coprimary outcomes included revenue generated by total performed examinations and estimated revenue attributed to SN involvement. We used Student's t test to compare the secondary outcome, RAI time interval, for higher versus lower revenue-generating modalities. RESULTS: In all, 24% (3,243) of eligible follow-up recommendations (13,670) required SN involvement. Total estimated revenue generated by performed recommended examinations was $6,116,871, with $980,628 attributed to SN. Net SN-generated revenue per 1.0 full-time equivalent was an estimated $349,768. Greatest proportion of performed examinations were cross-sectional modalities (CT, MRI, PET/CT), which were higher revenue-generating than non-cross-sectional modalities (x-ray, ultrasound, mammography), and had shorter recommendation time frames (153 versus 180 days, P < .001). DISCUSSION: The revenue generated from completion of RAI facilitated by an IT-enabled quality and safety program supplemented by an SN team can fund the required additional labor resources to improve patient safety. Realizing early revenue may require 5 to 6 months postimplementation.

Frequency and Clinical Utility of Alerts for Intra-Institutional Radiologist Discrepant Opinions.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the rate of documented notification, via an alert, for intra-institutional discrepant radiologist opinions and addended reports and resulting clinical management changes. METHODS: This institutional review board-exempt, retrospective study was performed at a large academic medical center. We defined an intra-institutional discrepant opinion as when a consultant radiologist provides a different interpretation from that formally rendered by a colleague at our institution. We implemented a discrepant opinion policy requiring closed-loop notification of the consulting radiologist's second opinion to the original radiologist, who must acknowledge this alert within 30 days. This study included all discrepant opinion alerts created December 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021, of which two radiologists and an internal medicine physician performed consensus review. Primary outcomes were degree of discrepancy and percent of discrepant opinions leading to change in clinical management. Secondary outcome was report addendum rate compared with an existing peer learning program using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of 114 discrepant opinion alerts among 1,888,147 reports generated during the study period (0.006%), 58 alerts were categorized as major (50.9%), 41 as moderate (36.0%), and 15 as minor discrepancies (13.1%). Clinical management change occurred in 64 of 114 cases (56.1%). Report addendum rate for discrepant opinion alerts was 4-fold higher than for peer learning alerts at our institution (66 of 315 = 21% versus 432 of 8,273 =5.2%; P < .0001). DISCUSSION: Although discrepant intra-institutional radiologist second opinions were rare, they frequently led to changes in clinical management. Capturing these discrepancies by encouraging alert use may help optimize patient care and document what was communicated to the referring or consulting care team by consulting radiologists.

Collaborative Case Review: A Systems-Based Approach to Patient Safety Event Investigation and Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were to assess a system-based approach to event investigation and analysis-collaborative case reviews (CCRs)-and to measure impact of clinical specialty on strength of action items prescribed. METHODS: A fully integrated CCR process, co-led by radiology and an institutional patient safety program, was implemented on November 1, 2017, at our large academic medical center for evaluating adverse events involving radiology. Quality and safety teams performed reviews for events identified with other departments who maintained their existing processes. This institutional review board-approved study describes the program, including percentage of CCR from an institutional Electronic Safety Reporting System, percentage of CCR per specialty, and action item completion rates and strength (e.g., stronger) based on a Veterans Administration-designed hierarchy. χ2 analysis assessed impact of clinical specialty on strength of action prescribed. RESULTS: Seventy-three CCR in 2018 generated 260 action items from 10 specialties. Seventy percent (51/73) were adverse events identified through Electronic Safety Reporting System. The specialty most frequently associated with CCR was radiology (16/73, 22%). Most action items (204/260, 78%) were completed in 1 year; stronger action items were completed in 71 (27%) of 260. Radiology was responsible for 61 action items; 25 (41%) of 61 were strong versus all other specialties with strong action items in 46 (23%) of 199 (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: An integrated multispecialty CCR co-led by the radiology department and an institutional patient safety program was associated with a higher proportion of CCR, stronger action items, and higher action item completion rate versus other hospital departments. Active engagement in CCR can provide insights into addressing adverse events and promote patient safety.

Integration of a Community Radiology Division into a Subspecialty-Focused Academic Radiology Department.

INTRODUCTION: Assimilate a general radiology division into a subspecialty-focused radiology department at an academic medical center. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved quality improvement initiative was performed at an academic medical centers' subspecialty-focused academic radiology department, aiming to assimilate a general radiology division providing interpretive services for a distributed set of community ambulatory practices. An Oversight Committee charged by the department chair created a charter with unambiguous goal, timelines, clear decision-making, and conflict resolution processes. The Committee assessed the resources and clinical capabilities of the general radiologists, and the anticipated shift in exam volume from the community into subspecialty divisions. Primary outcome, percentage of targeted organ systems-specific interpretations by general radiologists based on assigned subspecialty division, and secondary outcome of report turnaround time (TAT) for all ambulatory exams, were compared before and after sub-specialization. RESULTS: Among 10 general radiologists, 4.5 were assigned to subspecialty divisions; 5.5 continued to cover an independent general radiology practice in a for-profit delivery network. In the 5 months' post-transition, a total 86.6% (11,668/13,477) of reports by the integrated general radiologists were within designated subspecialty divisions vs 23.9% (2,586/10,829) pre-transition (P < 0.01). There was no change in ambulatory radiology report TAT for non-urgent care center (UCC) or UCC exams pre- vs post-integration. DISCUSSION: A quality improvement initiative with unambiguous decision-making and conflict resolution processes incorporated a general radiology practice (radiologists and exams) into a subspecialty-focused academic radiology practice without negatively impacting TAT metrics. Future studies would be needed to assess impact on quality of interpretations.

Radiology Workload Changes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications for Staff Redeployment.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Quantify changes in total and by-subspecialty radiology workload due to deferring nonurgent services during the initial COVID-19 pandemic, and describe operational strategies implemented due to shifts in priority. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, Institutional Review Board-exempt, study was performed between February 3, 2020 and April 19, 2020 at a large academic medical center. During March 9-15 (intervention period), nonurgent outpatient service deferments began. Five-week periods pre- (baseline) and postintervention (COVID) were defined. Primary outcomes were radiology volume (reports per day) overall and in 11 subspecialty divisions. Linear regression assessed relationship between baseline vs. COVID volumes stratified by division. Secondary outcomes included changes in relative value units (RVUs), inpatient and outpatient volumes. RESULTS: There were 62,791 baseline reports vs. 23,369 during COVID; a 60% overall precipitous volume decrease (p < 0.001). Mean volume decrease pre- and during-COVID was significant (p < 0.001) amongst all individual divisions. Mean volume decrease differed amongst divisions: Interventional Radiology experienced least disruption (29% volume decrease), 7 divisions experienced 40%-60% decreases, and Musculoskeletal, Breast, and Cardiovascular imaging experienced >75% volume decrease. Total RVUs decreased 60% (71,186 baseline; 28,476 COVID). Both outpatient and inpatient report volumes decreased; 72% (41,115 baseline; 11,326 COVID) and 43% (12,626 baseline vs. 6,845 COVID), respectively. In labor pool tracking data, 21.8% (162/744) total radiology employees were reassigned to other hospital duties during the intervention period. CONCLUSION: Precipitous radiology workload reductions impacted subspecialty divisions with marked variation. Data-driven operational decisions during COVID-19 assisted workflow and staffing assignment changes. Ongoing adjustments will be needed as healthcare systems transition operations to a "new normal."