Measuring the academic radiologist's clinical productivity: survey results for subspecialty sections.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this project was to understand better the academic radiologist's clinical workload in order to determine faculty staffing requirements more accurately. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surveys performed by the Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) collected data for radiologists in 20 departments in 1996 and 1998; the data included work relative value units (RVUs) per full-time equivalent (FTE). Radiologists in each subspecialty were compared with their counterparts in other departments. The data were collected for each radiologist. Summary statistics showing averages, medians, and quartiles were used to describe workload (in RVUs per FTE) for each department and each subspecialty. RESULTS: Overall, the average clinical workload was 4,458 RVU/FTE, with 0.62 RVU per procedure. In those sections for which the faculty performed similar types of procedures across departments, the results were useful. The workload data, however, proved inadequate to compare across subspecialty sections. Between 1996 and 1998, the workload increased from 3,790 to 4,458 RVU/FTE. CONCLUSION: The SCARD survey provided very useful clinical workload data, measured in work RVUs per FTE for specific subspecialty sections. At practically all surveyed institutions, increasing clinical workload is competing with academic activities.

Measuring the academic radiologist's clinical productivity: applying RVU adjustment factors.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To improve understanding of academic radiologists' clinical workloads, the Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) performed surveys to collect workload data for radiologists in 20 departments; workload was measured in relative value units (RVUs) per full-time equivalent (FTE). Although they were useful for comparisons within some subspecialties, the workload data proved inadequate for comparisons across sections, and adjustment factors were needed for each Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) code. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All CPT codes for examinations were divided into groups with similar radiologist work effort. Focusing on radiologists who worked almost exclusively in each group, the authors created adjustment factors by using data from the individual radiologists at each institution. RESULTS: The adjustment factors are 0.50 for angiography, 0.58 for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, and 1.0 for nuclear medicine, plain radiography, and special procedures (no adjustment needed for these groups). These factors are multiplied by the work RVUs for each examination to create the adjusted workload RVUs. CONCLUSION: The SCARD survey provided very useful clinical workload data, with workload measured in work RVUs per FTE for specific subspecialty sections. The new adjusted workload RVUs allow comparison of radiologists' workload across subspecialties.