Practice management performance indicators in academic radiology departments.

PURPOSE: To determine the management performance indicators most frequently utilized in academic radiology departments in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This investigation met the criteria for an exemption from institutional review board approval. A cross-sectional study in which a validated national survey was sent to members of the Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) was conducted. The survey was designed to examine the following six categories of 28 performance indicators: (a) general organization, (b) volume and productivity, (c) radiology reporting, (d) access to examinations, (e) customer satisfaction, and (f) finance. A total of 158 variables were included in the analysis. Summary statistics, the chi(2) test, rank correlation, multiple regression analysis, and analysis of variance were used. RESULTS: A response rate of 42% (55 of 132 SCARD members) was achieved. The mean number of performance indicators used by radiology departments was 16 +/- 6.35 (standard deviation). The most frequently utilized performance indicators were as follows: (a) productivity, in terms of examination volume (78% [43 departments]) and examination volume per modality (78% [43 departments]); (b) reporting, in terms of report turnaround (82% [45 departments]) and transcription time (71% [39 departments]); (c) access, in terms of appointment access to magnetic resonance imaging (80% [44 departments]); (d) satisfaction, in terms of number of patient complaints (84% [46 departments]); and (e) finance, in terms of expenses (67% [37 departments]). Regression analysis revealed that the numbers of performance indicators in each category were statistically significant in predicting the total number of performance indicators used (P < .001 for all). Numbers of productivity and financial indicators were moderately correlated (r = 0.51). However, there were no statistically significant correlations between the numbers of performance indicators used and hospital location, hospital size, or department size (P > .4 for all). CONCLUSION: Assessing departmental performance with a wide range of management indicators is not yet an established and standardized practice in academic radiology departments in the United States. Among all indicators, productivity indicators are the most frequently used.

A modified CT severity index for evaluating acute pancreatitis: improved correlation with patient outcome.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to assess the correlation with patient outcome and interobserver variability of a modified CT severity index in the evaluation of patients with acute pancreatitis compared with the currently accepted CT severity index. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 266 consecutive patients diagnosed with acute pancreatitis during a 1-year period, 66 underwent contrast-enhanced MDCT within 1 week of the onset of symptoms. Three radiologists who were blinded to patient outcome independently scored the severity of the pancreatitis using both the currently accepted and modified CT severity indexes. The modified index included a simplified assessment of pancreatic inflammation and necrosis as well as an assessment of extrapancreatic complications. Outcome parameters included the length of hospital stay; the need for surgery or percutaneous intervention; and the occurrences of infection, organ failure, and death. For both the current and modified indexes, correlation between the severity of the pancreatitis and patient outcome was estimated using the Wilcoxon's rank sum test and Fisher's exact test. Interobserver agreement for both indexes was calculated using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: When applying the modified index, the severity of pancreatitis and the following parameters correlated more closely than when the currently accepted index was applied: the length of the hospital stay (0-34 days) (modified index [p = 0.0054-0.0714] vs current index [p = 0.0052-0.3008]); the need for surgical or percutaneous procedures (10/66 patients) (modified index [p = 0.0112] vs current index [p = 0.0324]); and the occurrence of infection (21/66 patients) (modified index [p < 1e(-10)] vs current index [p < 1e(-04)]). Significant correlation between the severity of pancreatitis and the development of organ failure (9/66 patients) was seen only using the modified index (p = 0.0024), not the current index (p = 0.0513). The interobserver agreement was similar with the modified (kappa range, 0.71-0.85) and the current (kappa range, 0.63-0.86) indexes. CONCLUSION: The modified CT severity index correlates more closely with patient outcome measures than the currently accepted CT severity index, with similar interobserver variability.

Motivation and compensation in academic radiology.

As radiologists are increasingly faced with the challenges of rising demand for imaging services and staff shortages, the implementation of incentive plans in radiology is gaining importance. A key factor to be considered while developing an incentive plan is the strategic goal of the department. In academic radiology, management should decide whether it will reward research and teaching productivity in addition to clinical productivity. Various models have been suggested for incentive plans based on (1) clinical productivity, (2) multifactor productivity, (3) individual productivity, (4) section productivity, and (5) chair's discretion. Although fiscal rewards are most common, managers should consider other incentives, such as research time, resources for research, vacation time, and recognition awards, because academic radiologists may be motivated by factors other than financial gains.

Radiology scheduling: preferences of users of radiologic services and impact on referral base and extension.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To study end-user attitudes and preferences with respect to radiology scheduling systems and to assess implications for retention and extension of the referral base. A study of the institution's historical data indicated reduced satisfaction with the process of patient scheduling in recent years. METHODS: Sixty physicians who referred patients to a single, large academic radiology department received the survey. The survey was designed to identify (A) the preferred vehicle for patient scheduling (on-line versus telephone scheduling) and (B) whether ease of scheduling was a factor in physicians referring patients to other providers. Referring physicians were asked to forward the survey to any appropriate office staff member in case the latter scheduled appointments for patients. Users were asked to provide comments and suggestions for improvement. The statistical method used was the analysis of proportions. RESULTS: Thirty-three responses were received, corresponding to a return rate of 55%. Twenty-six of the 33 respondents (78.8%, P < .01) stated they were willing to try an online scheduling system; 16 of which tried the system. Twelve of the 16 (75%, P < .05) preferred the on-line application to the telephone system, stating logistical simplification as the primary reason for preference. Three (18.75%) did not consider online scheduling to be more convenient than traditional telephone scheduling. One respondent did not indicate any preference. Eleven of 33 users (33.33%, P < .001) stated that they would change radiology service providers if expectations of scheduling ease are not met. CONCLUSION: On-line scheduling applications are becoming the preferred scheduling vehicle. Augmenting their capabilities and availability can simplify the scheduling process, improve referring physician satisfaction, and provide a competitive advantage. Referrers are willing to change providers if scheduling expectations are not met.